Chapter 47

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

_Reform Bill passed by the Commons..... Debates on the Reform Bill in the Lords..... Disturbed State of the Nation..... Re-assembling of Parliament..... Failure of the Attempts to form a New Administration..... Ministers Recalled..... Reform Bill passed..... Irish and Scotch Reform Bills passed..... Bill to Prevent Bribery at Elections, &c. Committees on Irish Tithes..... Financial Statements..... Committee on the Charter of the East India Company, &c. The Affairs of the West Indies..... Prorogation of Parliament..... General Election..... Resignation of the Speaker..... State of Ireland..... State of the Continent_

REFORM BILL PASSED BY THE COMMONS.

{A.D. 1832}

When parliament reassembled on the 17th of January ministers expressed their intention of going into committee on the reform bill on the 20th. Messrs. Croker and Goulburn rejected this proposition, as bringing the house into a consideration of the details of the bill before it had been put in possession of the proper information. Lord John Russell and Lord Althorp, however, would not consent to any delay of the committee. On the 20th, when the motion was made for the house to go into committee, Mr. Croker repeated his objection to their proceeding in the state of imperfect information in which they were now left. Lord Althorp, and the material adherents, asserted that the information called for was unnecessary in deciding on the first clause, which respected the number of boroughs to be disfranchised, though they admitted that when they came to the schedule, information would be necessary in order to see whether the boroughs designated ought to be retained or not. Mr. Croker moved as an amendment that the committee should be delayed till the 24th; but it was negatived by a large majority; and the house then went into committee. On the first clause being read, Lord John Russell said, that as the line must, in any case, be arbitrary, it had been thought best to take the number which had received the sanction of the house in the former bill. Ministers would have liked quite as well fifty or fifty-five, sixty or sixty-five; but in fixing upon a number different from that of the preceding bill, they would have been acting on their own responsibility. After combating this clause with all the arguments that could be enforced, Mr. Croker, in accordance with the views of the opposition, moved, as an amendment, that the number fifty-six should be omitted. Lords John Russell and Althorp, however, repeated that the number had been adopted because it had been sanctioned in the preceding session. The former bill, they said, containing precisely the same number of disfranchised boroughs in schedule A, had been rejected by the lords; and it appeared of great importance to ministers that as little risk as possible should be run of its being again rejected by them, while at the same time they felt it to be of equal importance, to satisfy the country, that the great disfranchising principle of the former bill should be preserved. Mr. Croker’s motion was negatived; and then a similar discussion took place regarding the next clause, which enacted that thirty boroughs, to form schedule B, should in future send only one member to parliament. This was opposed on the ground that no reason was given why this number had been selected, and also on the ground that the principle of giving only one member was an inexpedient principle. Sir Robert Peel moved an amendment, that each of the boroughs in schedule B should continue to return two members; but this motion was also negatived by a large majority. The clauses giving members to various towns hitherto unrepresented, and those which united different places into one for electioneering purposes, were agreed to without much opposition, and without a division. The provision, also, that each of the three ridings of Yorkshire should return two members passed without opposition. Colonel Sibthorp made an ineffectual attempt to prevent the division of the county, but the clause was carried by a large majority. On the clause which provided that the limits of all places having the right of electing members, should be held to be such boundaries as shall “be settled and described by an act to be passed for that purpose in this present parliament,” Lord Althorp admitted an amendment, that the present act should not operate as a law until the boundary bill should have been passed. The provision, that where no particular returning officer was named in the schedule, the sheriff within whose jurisdiction the place lay should annually appoint such resident person as he thought fit to be returning officer, was strongly objected to; but the objections to the clause were not pressed to a division. The clause for dividing certain counties and giving two members occasioned much discussion. An amendment was proposed for the purpose of getting rid of it, and giving the four members to the undivided county. The principal support of this amendment was from the reformers, who opposed this part of the ministerial scheme on the ground that it was inconsistent with the main principles of the bill, as it narrowed the sphere within which aristocratic influence was to act, thus adding to its energy; and that it was a wanton and unnecessary interference with the ancient institutions of the country. Some members who had voted for this clause in the preceding session now declared themselves opposed to it in consequence of the extension of the comity franchise to tenants-at-will; while on the other hand several members who had voted against it in the former session, conceiving that the division would do good by preventing contests and unsatisfactory compromises, now supported it. Sir Robert Peel said, that though he intended to vote for the clause, he wished to suggest that another arrangement might be made with respect to the right of voting for counties, which would simplify the operation of the bill, and improve it; namely, that wherever a right of voting accrued from property, of whatever nature, in any city or borough, the individual possessing such property should be allowed to vote for the city or borough, but not for the county. Having made that provision for cities or boroughs, he would continue the integrity of the counties, and propose that each county should return four members. He offered this suggestion _bona fide_, as an alteration that would simplify the operation of the bill; and though he did not mean to move it as an amendment, he would ask whether it was not a proposition that was likely to please all parties? Ministers defended the clause on the ground that it would greatly diminish the expenses of county elections, and thus contribute to the purity of the representation, while it would neither tend to throw the power of the elections into the hands of the rural voters exclusively, nor of large proprietors, as it had been objected. As for Sir Robert Peel’s proposition, there was the great objection which he had himself suggested; namely, that it was too great a distinction between the inhabitants of towns and those who were more immediately connected with counties. If the proposition succeeded, the consequence would be that many voters possessing freeholds in boroughs, which, as the bill now stood, would enable them to vote for counties, would be disfranchised. The original clause, however, was carried by an overwhelming majority. An amendment, intended to have a similar result with Sir Robert Peel’s proposal, was subsequently moved by Mr. Praed on the clause, to the effect that no county franchise should arise from the possession of property of any kind situated in a represented borough, and that forty-shilling freeholders in boroughs returning members should be entitled to vote for the borough members only; but this amendment was likewise negatived. No division took place on the clause giving three members to certain of the middle-sized counties, although it was denounced as monstrous and unjustifiable on any principle of fairness or common equity. In the preceding session, while the former bill was in committee, the Marquis of Chandos had succeeded in carrying as an amendment a provision which conferred the county franchise on tenants-at-will paying a rent of not less than fifty pounds per annum. Ministers had opposed this, but had been defeated; and they now, although they had made the provision part of the new bill, sought to get rid of it by an amendment which went to strike it out of the clause altogether. The amendment was moved by Sir Robert Heron, and supported by Lord Milton and Mr. C. Ferguson, but only thirty-two members voted for it, while two hundred and seventy-two supported what was now part of an original clause. A variety of amendments on the clause fixing the qualification of borough electors at ten pounds was moved by Mr. Hunt and others, but were all negatived. The clauses which regulated the formation of registers of the voters, the duration of elections, and the mode of polling, were carried without giving rise to much discussion. By the 20th of February the committee had gone through the different clauses, and then proceeded to take up the schedules, which it had been agreed should be postponed till the other provisions of the bill should be arranged. Mr. Croker argued that great inconvenience and injustice would result, if the committee proceeded to determine what boroughs should stand in schedules A and B, before they had ascertained whether the calculations on which disfranchisement was made to depend were correct and uniform. In some boroughs, he said, game-certificates and yeomanry exemptions were included, while in others they were omitted: if the rule was not uniform it would be unjust. The fifty-six boroughs for schedule A, and the thirty for schedule B would come up to No. 86 in the list: Helstone No. 84; neither the yeomanry exemptions, nor the game-certificates for that borough had been included; if the former were added, Helstone would be No. 88; if the game-certificates were likewise added, it would be No. 89; in either case it would be raised above the line of disfranchisement. It was impossible for the committee to decide what boroughs ought to be disfranchised, until they had returns of the assessed taxes of each borough, specifying whether game-certificates and yeomanry exemptions were or were not included. The consideration of the schedule ought to be postponed till that information had been obtained. Lord John Russell admitted that there was a difference with respect to many boroughs, and that one uniform rule ought to be observed. Directions for that purpose had been given to the commissioners, and they had endeavoured to obtain returns comprehending the game-duties; but from some misunderstanding there still remained a few cases where the game-duties were omitted. He argued, however, that this was no reason for delay; and the house supporting him in his views, it was resolved to proceed. After a discussion on the principles and calculations on which the schedules had been framed, which led to no division, the committee proceeded to the particular boroughs, and the disfranchisement of the first fifty-two was agreed to without an amendment. The next was Appleby, in regard to which it was contended by the opposition that ministers had repeated the injustice which they had committed last session, by leaving out details which ought to have been introduced, which omission was made for the purpose of securing its disfranchisement. A motion was made for its exclusion from schedule A; but the committee having divided, it was decided that it should remain in the schedule. The last of the fifty-six boroughs to be disfranchised was Amersham, and Mr. Croker moved that Midhurst should take its place. No reason was offered why the one should be disfranchised and the other not; but Midhurst was saved by taking in an adjoining district. Alderman Waithman justified the disfranchisement of Amersham, because it was a corrupt borough, where there had been no election within the memory of man. But this had been the case equally at Midhurst, and yet it was decided by vote that Amersham should be No. 5G in schedule A, instead of Midhurst. Mr. Shiel, who wished to extend the disfranchisement in England, in order that Ireland might receive a larger number of members, moved that Petersfield should be taken out of schedule B and transferred to schedule A. If successful in this, he intended to follow up the motion by one regarding Eye, Wareham, Midhurst, and Woodstock. He conceived it impossible that his motion should be rejected, considering what had been done to Amersham, as that town had far higher claims to return a member than Petersfield, whether as regarded population, wealth, rental, or number of ten-pound houses. Lord Althorp admitted that he could not oppose the motion on principle, though he resisted it on the ground of expediency. Prudence, he said, required that the success of the bill in the house of lords should not be hazarded by sending up to their lordships a bill disfranchising a greater number of boroughs than had been contained in that which they had rejected. Mr. Shiel withdrew his motion; and on the 28th of February the committee proceeded to the consideration of the thirty boroughs which were to form schedule B. Having thus disposed of the disfranchising clauses, the committee proceeded to schedule C, which gave members to places hitherto unrepresented. The only debate or division which took place in considering this schedule, was on the clause which proposed to confer eight members on the metropolitan districts: the Tower Hamlets, Finsbmy, Marylebone, and Lambeth. The Marquis of Chandos, after contending that to extend the elective franchise in that quarter would lead to a great excitement, and give the capital a preponderating influence over the rest of the country, moved an amendment, that the clause should be omitted. He was supported by Sir E. Sugden, Sir George Murray, and Lord Sandon, who argued that the provision was unnecessary, and far from being expedient. The clause was defended by Lords Althorp and John Russell, and Messrs. Macaulay and C. Grant, who, on the other hand, maintained that an increase to the metropolitan representation, was required both by justice and by the principles of the bill; and that the dangers apprehended from it were visionary, while those which would attend its refusal were real and unavoidable. On a division, the motion of the Marquis of Chandos was lost by a majority of three hundred and sixteen against two hundred and thirty-six. In the consideration of schedule D, which contained those new boroughs which were only to return one member, an unsuccessful attempt was made to include Stockton-on-Tees, and Merthyr Tydvil; but on the bringing up of the report, Lord John Russell informed the house that ministers had resolved to allow the latter place a member of its own: “treating it,” he said, “rather like an English town than a Welsh contributory borough.” By the 9th of March the committee had gone through the bill, and the report was considered on the 14th, on which day Mr. Croker put several resolutions on the journals without pressing them to a division, embodying the objections, not to the principles of the bill, but to the manner in which they had been applied. On the 19th the motion for the third reading of the bill was met by an amendment, moved by Lord Mahon, that it should be read a third time that day six months.

The amendment was seconded by Sir John Malcolm, and was followed by a debate which continued to the 22nd, in which old arguments, both for and against, were reiterated with deep earnestness. On a division, the bill was carried by a majority of three hundred and fifty-five against two hundred and thirty-nine; leaving a majority of one hundred and sixteen for ministers. On the 23rd the bill was finally passed; an amendment which went to raise the qualification to twenty pounds in Liverpool, and all the new boroughs, returning two members, having been negatived without a division.

DEBATES ON THE REFORM BILL IN THE LORDS.

When the reform bill had been thus carried through the commons a second time, the reformers began again to be apprehensive of its fate in the upper house, and to bring again into operation their various engines of clamour and intimidation. It was industriously reported abroad that ministers had been armed with a _carte blanche_ for the creation of peers, in order to carry the measure; but though they did not deny it, it does not appear that any such power had been delegated to them. At all events the bill was laid before the house of lords without a single peer having been created, and it was read a first time on the 26th of March. The most important part of its reception consisted in the speeches of Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe, who had led the opposition of last session, but who now declared their intention to vote for the second reading. The Bishop of London was also so impressed with the dangers hanging over the country, that he resolved to follow this example. On the other hand, the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Carnarvon, and the Marquis of Londonderry, expressed their undiminished aversion to the measure. The second reading was moved on the 9th of April, and the debate was continued up to the 13th. Before the discussion commenced, the Duke of Buckingham gave notice that if there should be, as he trusted there would be, a majority against the second reading of this bill, he would bring in, after the Easter recess, a bill for the purpose of giving representatives to such of the large towns therein to be named, whose importance entitled them to representation; and also for the purpose of joining and consolidating the representation of certain boroughs which now elected members, so as to make room for the new representatives without adding to the members of the house of commons, and to extend the franchise in such a way as to prevent its abuse in boroughs. In proof of his sincerity, his grace moved the insertion of this notice on the journals of the house.

In moving the second reading of the reform bill, Earl Grey said, that he considered himself almost relieved from entering into discussion of its principles, because there were few of their lordships who did not now recognise those principles, and admit that some degree of change was necessary. After briefly mentioning the nature of the bill, its interesting object, the large majority that had sent it from the commons to the lords, and the support it had received from the people, he proceeded to notice the Duke of Buckingham’s intended motion for reform. His very notice, he said, admitted all the three principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and an extension of the right of voting. He felt, therefore, justified in calling on the house to sanction the second reading of a measure founded upon a basis which was acknowledged to be just, even by those who opposed the measure itself; inasmuch as they would have an opportunity of proposing in the committee such alterations in its details as might appear necessary and expedient. The noble earl next proceeded to notice the alterations introduced into the bill, and to defend the ten-pound qualification from objections that had been raised against it. He concluded with an appeal to their lordships on the unjust attacks made on him for having proposed a measure which, in his opinion, was required by that duty which he owed to his sovereign and his country. He especially called their lordships’ attention to the awful silence on the part of the people now prevailing, and taking place of that outcry which first marked the progress of the bill. Silence, he said, might perhaps lead some to imagine that they were not viewing this measure with the same feelings of interest; but he cautioned their lordships against forming such an opinion. “Though the people are silent,” he added, “they are looking at our proceedings this night no less intensely than they have looked even ever since the question was first agitated. I know that it is pretended by many that the nation has no confidence in the peers, because there is an opinion out of doors that the interests of the aristocracy are separated from those of the people. On the part of this house, however, I disclaim all such separation of interests; and therefore I am willing to believe that the silence of which I have spoken is the fruit of a latent hope still existing in their bosoms.” Lord Ellenborough opposed the motion for the second reading, and moved as an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. His lordship admitted that the bill had passed the commons by a large majority, and that the majority was seconded by a large body of the people: but when he recollected how often material alterations had been made in the bill; that the qualification clause had been remodelled eleven times; that a town had been enfranchised at the very last moment; that among forty-six boroughs of the original bill there had been forty-seven changes; and that no such sweeping alteration had ever been made in the established constitution of a great country, he could not see any reason for adopting this last emanation of an ever-changing mind. There could be no doubt that there were many respectable persons whose opinions ought to be held in proper regard, who were anxious that some change should take place in our system of parliamentary representation. He contended, however, that if this bill passed it was clear, from the constituency which would be created by it, that parliament must be prepared to go further. It would be impossible, he said, to resist the demands of the most numerous and most necessitous class in the state: concession must proceed until universal suffrage was established. Lord Melbourne spoke briefly in favour of the bill, and the Bishop of Durham opposed it. At the same time, the latter said, he by no means considered that the rejection of the present measure implied a rejection of reform _in toto_; it was the duty of ministers to have proposed a measure calculated to satisfy both the party that was anxious for reform, and the party which felt alarmed at the consequences of great changes, while they had introduced a proposition which would gratify neither party. Earl Bathurst took the same view of the question: he had no objections to a bill for reform, but the present measure would make parliament worse than it had ever been. His lordship particularly called on the house to recollect the declaration which the lord-chancellor had made regarding the ten-pound qualification: that it was emphatically a subject for deliberation in committee, and for such alterations as their lordships should think fitting. Now, however, it was not to be touched, though it was a qualification opposed to the recorded opinions of its present patrons, as well as of the people. The Earl of Haddington had changed his opinion on the subject of reform. On the former occasion, he said, till within a few days before the debate, his mind had been made up that the bill should be read a second time, because he conceived it expedient that the question should be arranged by the house as soon as possible. He had abandoned these sentiments from a conviction that, in the existing state of feeling in the country, anything like an amendment in the bill would not be practicable. Lord Gage also declared that he had changed his opinion. He thought it impossible to prevent the people from having a reform, and by refusing to go into committee, their lordships might deprive themselves of the opportunity of introducing such amendments as they wished into the bill. On the other hand, the Earl of Wicklow conceived that the reasons which had led to the rejection of the bill of the last session were equally as potent for rejecting the present; and he therefore continued his hostility to it. The Earl of Shrewsbury, a Catholic peer, distinguished himself while he supported the bill by a violent attack against the Protestant bishops. The Earl of Mansfield objected to the present bill, as he did to the former. The Earl of Harrowby had already announced that he would vote for the second reading; but he had yet to state his reasons for this change of sentiment, he having been one of the most distinguished opponents of the bill of last session. In doing so, he denied that the sentiments he had delivered against the former bill were those of a man determined to resist, under all circumstances whatever, the considerations of parliamentary reform. On the contrary, the opinion which more than another he was anxious to express was, that they should not treat the present bill as they had treated the last; that though they had then acted right in rejecting the bill, they would not be warranted to do so again; and that they could not hope again successfully to resist a measure which the house of commons had sanctioned a second time by a large majority, and in favour of which the people of England had expressed a decided opinion. It was for this reason that he had prepared a resolution by which the house would pledge itself, in the then next session, to take into serious consideration some plan for extending the franchise to his majesty’s subjects, and for correcting the abuses which had crept into the representative branch of the constitution. He was on the point of moving this resolution, when he was persuaded by some noble friends that to do so then would do more harm than good; that it would be better to wait till the excitement of the public mind had been somewhat allayed before a more moderate measure of reform than that brought forward by ministers should be submitted to parliament. He yielded to the suggestion, hoping that the interval between the two sessions would afford the public and their lordships time to consider maturely the merits of the question, and that both would see that, if the ministers’ plan were adopted, it would prove injurious to all existing interests. In this he had been disappointed; there had been time enough to allow a reaction to have manifested itself; but it could not be denied that, notwithstanding the potent objections which had been urged against the bill, no such reaction had occurred. On these grounds, with others, his lordship said he would vote for the second reading. He was followed by the Duke of Wellington, who said that he could not shift into the course which the Earl of Harrowby, and those who thought with him had adopted. Why he could not, he explained at great length; and he afterwards descanted at large upon the objections which he had to the bill itself. It was bad, he said, because it went to overturn the whole established system of representation; it destroyed for the mere pleasure of reconstructing: it totally revolutionised the representation of Scotland, and put an end to all the arrangements which, three years ago, had been entered into for the final settlement of the catholic question. It put an end, also, to that most valuable principle of our existing constitution—the principle of prescription—which sanctioned the descent, and secured the possession of all kinds of property in this country. It went to destroy a number of boroughs—some holding by prescription, and some by charter—and for no reason whatever, except that such was the will of the minister of the day. Lord Wharncliffe, who had moved the amendment which threw out the former bill, had now come to the conclusion that the danger of rejecting the bill was greater than that of taking it into consideration; and that, by going into committee they might get rid of those parts of it against which a strong objection was felt; and, at all events, would be enabled more thoroughly to weigh its provisions. The effect of rejecting the bill, in his opinion, would be to place all those who voted against the second reading in a perilous situation with the country. The Duke of Buckingham opposed the bill. His grace introduced no new argument, but urged the house at all costs to resist reform in every shape. He severely animadverted upon the speech of the Earl of Shrewsbury, for attacking the constitution and the ministers of the protestant religion. The Bishops of Lincoln and Llandaff, who had opposed the last bill, now announced their intention of voting for the second reading; at the same time they did not pledge themselves to adopt the measure as a whole. On the other hand, the Bishop of Exeter announced his intention of giving the bill his decided opposition. His speech gave occasion to an angry episode, founded on a somewhat common occurrence. It was generally believed that the Times newspaper, which had recently distinguished itself by great abuse in favour of the bill, was not altogether excluded from the confidential communications of ministers. The Bishop of Exeter, in descanting on the tone and the temper of the press, spoke of some articles in this journal as “breathing the inspiration of the treasury.” On the following evening Lord Durham, son-in-law of the premier, assuming that he was the party pointed at, attacked what he called “the bishop’s gross and virulent invective—his malignant, calumnious, and false insinuations—his well-known powers of pamphleteering slang.” Here the noble lord was called to order, and the Earl of Winchelsea moved that the words “false insinuations” and “pamphleteering slang” should be taken down. After some observations from Earl Grey, Lord Holland, and the Duke of Buckingham, Lord Durham went on to state that he had not the slightest objection to the words being taken down, and denied the imputations cast upon him. The Marquis of Lansdowne argued in favour of the measure; in doing which he denied that he, or the rest of his majesty’s ministers, were introducing new doctrines. They wished, he said, to go back to the elements of the constitution; and he argued that there was nothing contrary to the principles of that constitution, in extending the right of voting to those places which had become the depositories of that knowledge, and the possessors of that influence on society, to which the wisdom and policy of this government had always endeavoured to attach itself; or in disfranchising small and unimportant places, and enfranchising others of importance. As to the apprehensions, he continued, that the new constituency were likely to be governed in their choice of representatives by factious or revolutionary motives, and, above all, by anything like a desire to disturb the tranquillity of the country, they were groundless. In moments of great excitement it might be so; but the class of persons on whom the franchise was now to be conferred would generally feel themselves flattered on being consulted by their superiors, and would in the end rely on their judgment. His belief was that their choice would be governed by a desire to elect such persons as would advocate measures contributing to the public tranquillity; for, having acquired their property by their own industry, they had as deep a stake in the country’ as any noble baron who derived a splendid fortune from his progenitors. Small fortunes were as valuable to them as the ample incomes of any of their lordships. Their lordships might convey away their land, and go to another country to avoid the evils of a revolution; but to the professional man, who depended upon the peaceful exertions of his talents; to the mechanic, who depended upon his weekly wages; to the annuitant and small proprietor, who depended upon their half-yearly and quarterly incomes—revolution, or even agitation, would bring greater ruin than could come upon their lordships, even by the confiscation of their estates. Lord Wynford, in opposing the bill, said that those who were voting for the second reading, in the hope of introducing amendments in committee, were acting a very foolish and dangerous part. They might beat government on different clauses; but all that was done in the committee might be undone on bringing up the report. Lord Eldon, on the same side, said that no man was or could be an enemy to reform; but, he thought, the first duty of every peer was to consider whether what was proposed was or was not reform; whether it was a measure which the people ought to expect, and which would confer any additional happiness on those for whom it was intended. He had opposed reform for forty years, because he had seen no plan which, in his opinion, would improve the condition of the people: and this last was so vicious in its principles and details, that it would be impossible to carry it into effect with any safety to the institutions of the country. Lord Tenterden likewise declared his continued hostility to the bill; and he went so far as to say that he would never enter the doors of the house again if the bill should be carried, “after it had become the phantom of its departed greatness.” The Bishops of Rochester and Gloucester likewise expressed their determination to vote against the bill; and the latter took occasion to animadvert, with pointed but just severity, on the attack which had been made by the Catholic Earl of Shrewsbury on the ecclesiastical bench. The Earl of Carnarvon opposed the motion, and Viscount Goderich spoke in favour of it. They were followed by the lord-chancellor, who referred to the petitions which had been addressed to the house, the resolutions adopted at public meetings of merchants and bankers, and the composition of the majorities and minorities in the house of commons, to show that the opinion of property, as well as of members, was in favour of the measure, and that the feeling of the people had in no degree subsided. Lord Lyndhurst said that he had not heard or seen anything to convince him that he had acted erroneously in voting against the principles of the former bill; and as the present bill was admitted to be the same, he should vote against the second reading. Earl Grey, in his reply, repeated the answers which had already been put forward to the views taken of the bill by its opponents, and denied the charge of having excited the country. On the subject of the threatened creation of peers, which had been so frequently alluded to, his lordship said that the best writers on the constitution admitted that, although the creation of a large number of peers for a particular object was a measure which should rarely be resorted to, yet in some cases, such as to avoid a collision between the two houses, it might be absolutely necessary. For many reasons he was averse to such a scheme; but he believed it would be found that in a case of necessity, like that which he had stated, a creation of peers would be justifiable, and in accordance with the most acknowledged principles of our constitution. On a division, the second reading was carried in favour of ministers by a majority of nine, the numbers being one hundred and eighty-four against one hundred and seventy-five.

After the reform bill had been read a second time, the lords broke up for the Easter recess. Previous to their breaking up, however, the Duke of Wellington thought proper to enter a protest against the second reading on the journals. This protest embodied all the objections urged against the bill; and it was signed by seventy-four other peers, including the Dukes of Cumberland and Gloucester. The committee was appointed the first day after the Easter recess.

DISTURBED STATE OF THE NATION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

The interval which elapsed before the reassembling of parliament was a very memorable one in the annals of the country. Every association and political union, tremblingly alive for the fate of the bill, was on the alert, it being conceived that it was in imminent clanger of being lost in committee. At Leeds, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Paisley, Dundee, as well as throughout the south of England, meetings were held, at all of which resolutions were passed expressing confidence in Earl Grey and his colleagues; and petitions were got up to the king and the house of lords, beseeching them to pass the bill unmutilated. In the counties of Warwick, Worcester, and Stafford, all the associations agreed to meet at the foot of Newhall Hill, and an immense assembly was collected on the day appointed, when a petition to the house of lords was carried, “imploring them not to drive to despair a high-minded, generous, and fearless people; nor to urge them on, by a rejection of their claims, to demands of a much more extensive nature; but rather to pass the reform bill into a law, unimpaired in any of its great parts and provisions, more especially uninjured in the clauses relating to the ten-pounds franchise.” At Birmingham, the council of the union declared its sittings permanent until the fate of the bill should be decided. In the metropolis, an extraordinary assembly of the national union took place. Mr. Hume was in the chair, and various resolutions were agreed to, all urging the necessity of the bill being passed without alterations; while a petition to the house of lords stated that, in case of its mutilation or rejection, “there was reason to expect that the payment of taxes would cease; that other obligations of society would be disregarded; and that the ultimate consequence might be the utter extinction of the privileged orders.”

REASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled after the Easter recess on the 7th of May. The house of lords then went into committee on the reform bill, no attempt having been made by the opposition to move any obstructions to it. In the committee, Earl Grey stated that the house would probably be inclined to follow the course which had been adopted by the commons; namely, to dispose of the disfranchising clauses, leaving the schedules for future consideration. He proposed that the number fifty-six should not be specified, but that their lordships should come to a successive vote on each individual borough as part of the clause. He thought this the best method of obviating objections which had been made to the clause as it now stood. Lord Lyndhurst, however, thought it would be still more convenient to postpone the consideration of the first clause altogether. If this were done, he should likewise propose the postponement of the second clause; and he would take this course for the purpose of entering on the consideration of the boroughs and places to be enfranchised—a matter which, he thought, ought to be discussed before the house entered on the question of disfranchisement. His lordship admitted that he considered the second reading of the bill to have fixed the three principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and extension of suffrage; but he contended that the house was not fettered, in the slightest degree, as to the point to which these principles were to be carried, although he had no hesitation in saying that, after all that had passed in both houses of parliament, and looking at the state of the country, and the expectations that were abroad, neither he, nor those with whom he acted, were disposed to suggest any alterations which would render the measure unsatisfactory to intelligent reformers. He observed, that Lord John Russell had said on a previous day, “Let us first agree as to what towns shall be enfranchised, and then we shall see what is to be the extent of disfranchisement—what alterations it may be necessary to propose.” He would proceed on the same principle. It was not prejudging the question of disfranchisement; for their lordships would afterwards measure the extent of disfranchisement by the extent to which they should have carried the principle of enfranchisement. On these grounds, therefore, he moved that the first and second clauses of the bill should be postponed. The lord-chancellor said that, although Earl Grey had proposed to omit the number, that had no connection whatever with any intention not to propose the disfranchisement of all the fifty-six. There would be an inconvenience attending the clause, if it were proposed at once that fifty-six boroughs should be disfranchised, and therefore it had been proposed to leave out the number, but with the certain intention of proposing the insertion of every one of the fifty-six as they went on. The present proposition, however, was of a different character, and considering by whom it was made, and likely to be supported, he could view it in no other light than as a negative of the most important part of the bill. The amendment was supported by Lords Harrowby, Wharncliffe, Winchelsea, and Ellenborough, and the Duke of Wellington, and others, on the ground that its object was not to defeat schedules A and B. Several of these noble lords deemed it expedient to enter on a defence of their character for integrity and fair dealing in thus supporting the amendment; but the Duke of Newcastle avowed boldly that he gave it his support, as he would any other measure likely to frustrate the bill. Lord Holland argued that the proposition was inconsistent with the decision to which that house had come on the second reading; being in reality a proposition against the principles of the bill. The Earl of Harewood thought, that as the bill had passed the second reading, and entered the committee, it ought to be dealt with fairly; and if he believed that the motion now before the house contained anything of a sinister character, he would not support it. If ministers knew the nature of the amendments which would be proposed if the postponement should be agreed to, much of their objection to the proposition would be removed. They were under the impression that the object of the amendment was to defeat schedule A; but he believed that no such intention was entertained; if it were, he would not support it. It was his belief that the amendments which would be proposed would comprise the whole of schedule A. Earl Grey, however, asserted that nothing could have been devised better calculated to defeat the bill than this amendment; and he would state at once that, if it were carried, he would consider it fatal to the bill. He was pledged to the principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and the extension of the qualification. With respect to the two first, he was ready to listen to any suggestions which might be made with a view of preventing injustice in details, but he would not consent to any reduction of the extent of either disfranchisement or enfranchisement. His lordship also stated that he would resist with the most fixed determination any proposition which, under the pretence of regulation, would have the effect of raising the qualification. These things being fixed, he was so far from considering the proposed motion of little consequence, that it appeared to him of the greatest importance. If it did not subvert the principle of the bill, it materially affected it; and therefore it was impossible that he should give it his assent. He was unable to understand why enfranchisement should be proceeded with before disfranchisement; he might reverse the proposition, and say, that the amount of enfranchisement could not be ascertained till the extent of disfranchisement was settled. A noble lord had expressed a hope that ministers would confide in the peers on the other side of the house, to grant a proper measure of reform to the people; had he observed any such disposition, no one would have been more ready than himself to have met it in a proper spirit; always recollecting that he was irrevocably fixed to the bill. Another noble lord had said, that if any alteration should be proposed which would defeat the principles of the bill, ministers might reckon upon many coming over to them from the opposite side: he could not rely on such a hope consistently with his duty to his king, his country, and himself. It was his opinion that if the present motion should be carried, there would be a difficulty in bringing the bill to a successful issue; and if it should, it would then be necessary for him to consider the course he should be constrained to adopt. At length the house divided, and ministers were left in a minority, the votes for Lord Lyndhurst’s amendment being one hundred and fifty-five, and those against it, one hundred and sixteen.

On this defeat of ministers, Earl Grey immediately moved that the house should resume; and stated that he would then move that the further consideration of the bill be postponed till Thursday, the 10th. Lord Ellenborough expressed his regret that ministers should interpose delay; and took the opportunity of detailing the amendments which his party, after serious consideration, intended to propose. These consisted in a disfranchisement of one hundred and thirteen boroughs, their privileges to be distributed among other places; a prohibition of persons to vote for counties in respect of property situated in boroughs; the adoption of a clearer and more certain mode of ascertaining the genuineness and value of holdings; and the retention, not only of the ten-pound qualification, but of scot and lot where it existed.

Having postponed the further consideration of the bill, Earl Grey and the lord-chancellor proceeded to Windsor, and tendered his majesty the alternative of either arming the ministers with the powers they deemed necessary to enable them to carry through their bill—namely, a creation of peers—or of accepting their resignation. The ministers seem to have expected that he would have adopted the former alternative; but the king hesitated on account of the great number requisite, and the danger of such a precedent. He did not give his answer till the next day, when he informed Earl Grey that he had determined to accept his resignation rather than have recourse to the only alternative which had been proposed. Ministers then resigned _en masse_; and on the 9th Earl Grey in the lords, and Lord Althorp in the commons, announced that the ministry was at an end, and that they held their offices only till their successors should be appointed. Earl Grey in doing so moved that the order for going on with the committee next day should be discharged; and he did not think it necessary to name another day for that purpose. The Earl of Carnarvon strenuously resisted this proposition: the house would not do its duty, he said, to the country or the sovereign, if it left them in this extraordinary state, by suspending so important a subject as reform. The motion for taking the committee on the following Monday was agreed to.

In the commons, on the announcement of the resignation of ministers, Viscount Ebrington gave notice that he would next day move an address to the king on the state of public affairs, and that he would likewise move a call of the house, that he might “guard against backsliders and time-watchers,” and show the people who were their honest and consistent representatives and who were not. In pursuance of this notice, on the 10th of May his lordship moved, “That an humble address be presented to his majesty, humbly to represent to his majesty the deep regret felt by this house at the change which has been announced in his majesty’s councils by the retirement of those ministers in whom this house continues to repose unabated confidence. That this house, in conformity with the recommendation contained in his majesty’s most gracious speech from the throne, has framed and sent up to the house of lords a bill for a reform in the representation of the people, by which they are convinced that the prerogatives of the crown, the authority of both houses of parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people, are equally secured. That, to the progress of this measure, this house considers itself bound in duty to state to his majesty that his subjects are looking with the most intense interest and anxiety; and they cannot disguise from his majesty their apprehension that any successful attempt to mutilate or impair its efficiency would be productive of the greatest disappointment and dismay. This house is therefore compelled, by warm attachment to his majesty’s person and government, humbly, but most earnestly, to implore his majesty to call to his councils such persons only as will cany into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions, that bill for the reform of the representation of the people, which has recently passed this house.” The motion was opposed by Mr. Baring, who, before proceeding to speak against it, expressed a hope that Lord Althorp would give some explanation of the nature of that advice which ministers had tendered to the king, and his majesty’s refusal of which had led to their resignation. Lord Althorp declined answering, and Mr. Baring then went on to say that the house was thus left in utter ignorance. He asked on what facts, therefore, was the proposed address to be rested? Lord Althorp, in reply, said, that he had no objection to state plainly that the advice which ministers had given to the king was, that he should create as many peers as would enable them to carry the reform bill through the house of lords in all its efficiency. It was true he had treated a similar proposition to Lord Lyndhurst’s, when made in the house of commons, as a matter of small importance; but after the decision to which the lords had come, there was no hope left of carrying the measure. From that moment the bill had passed into the hands of its declared enemies; and ministers had to choose between two alternatives,—either to resign immediately, or to tender such advice as would place them in a situation in which they might be responsible for the further progress of the bill; they had adopted the latter alternative, and their advice having been rejected, all that was left them was to resign. Mr. Hume, in supporting the proposition, stated that it did not go far enough. Lord Morpeth supported, and Sir Robert Peel opposed the motion. The latter said, that the first resolution implied a complete confidence in the existing government. He could not consent to this; with reference to the general course they had taken, he could not say that they deserved his confidence. With respect to the reform question, and with reference to some other points, he was decidedly opposed to the course which the government had pursued. Mr. Macaulay, in supporting the proposition, contended that the house had a right, with respect to the prerogative of the sovereign in the choice of his ministers, as with regard to all the other prerogatives of the crown, to offer its respectful advice. The prerogative vested in the crown of creating peers, for the purpose of carrying any public question, was a valuable and useful power, the existence of which was absolutely necessary, in order, on important questions, to obviate great and pressing inconveniences. He argued, also, that there existed a strong necessity for counterbalancing, by a creation of peers from the Whig party, the number of peers which, during the last forty years, had been made from the Conservative party. There could not be a strong objection to the creation of fifty peers in one day, when no objection had been raised to the creation of two hundred in the course of a generation by the one party that held power during that period. He heartily concurred in the advice which ministers had given to the king, and he regretted it had not been taken: unless ministers were recalled, the reform bill would be lost. On a division, the resolutions were carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty-eight against two hundred and eight.

FAILURE OF THE ATTEMPTS TO FORM A NEW ADMINISTRATION—MINISTERS RECALLED, ETC.

During these proceedings in parliament great agitation prevailed throughout the country. The political unions convened large assemblies in the open air, and violent resolutions were passed, which threatened a dissolution of society. Addresses were voted to the king, praying him to create as many peers as might be necessary, while others were sent to the commons, praying them to stop the supplies. One meeting, which styled itself “a meeting of the inhabitants of Westminster,” assured the king, that, unless their advice was complied with, “tumult, anarchy, and confusion would overspread the land, and would cease only with the extinction of the privileged orders,” The national political union resolved to present a petition, praying that, till the bill passed, no supplies should be allowed to go into the hands of the lords of the treasury, but should be paid over to commissioners named by the house of commons; this course was specifically recommended to them, on the ground that it was taken from “that admirable resolution adopted by the house of commons in 1642.” The national union also resolved “that the betrayal of the people’s cause was not attributable to Lord Grey, or his administration; but to the base and foul treachery of others; that meetings be recommended in every comity, town, and parish throughout the kingdom; which, by inducing compliance with the unanimous wishes of the people, may prevent the mischief that would otherwise result from the general indignation; that a petition be presented to the house of commons, praying the appointment of commissioners to receive the supplies; and that, until the bill pass, they be not managed by the lords of the treasury.” The common-council met at Guildhall, and passed a number of resolutions, expressing their mortification and disappointment at the distressing communication made by ministers, that his majesty had refused them the means of carrying the reform Dill through the house of lords; declaring that the advisers of such a refusal had put to hazard the stability of the throne and tranquillity of the country; and petitioning the commons to withhold supplies till the reform bill was carried. Tire livery of the city also met, and passed a similar set of resolutions; adding, that “they viewed with distrust and abhorrence attempts, at once interested and hypocritical, to delude and mislead the people by pretended plans of reform, promised or proposed by the insidious enemies of all reform.” The speeches at this meeting dared any administration to assume the reins of government, without undertaking to carry the whole bill. The Duke of Wellington was particularly censured by the speakers: nor did his majesty himself escape censure for yielding to domestic influence, and following the advice of pernicious counsellors. The majority of the house of lords, however, was more particularly attacked: it was said, they were men who would mix blood with corruption; that they were friends of every despotism; and that they were representatives of Miguel and of Ferdinand, of Russian lords and German ladies. Similar meetings were held in Westminster, Southwark, Marylebone, St. Paneras, and Paddington. At Birmingham also, the news of Earl Grey’s resignation had no sooner arrived, than the inhabitants assembled at Newhall Hill, and a petition was voted to the house of commons, which, in addition to a prayer that the supplies might be stopped, contained this ominous sentence: “Your petitioners find it declared in the bill of rights that the people of England may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law; and they apprehend that this great right will be enforced generally, in order that the people may be prepared for any circumstances that may arise.” Some of the inhabitants defied the laws of their country by exhibiting printed placards in their windows to the effect that no taxes would be paid until the reform bill had passed. Similar meetings were held, similar petitions were got up, and similar language used at Manchester, Liverpool, and in various parts of Scotland and Ireland. The annals of England, indeed, clo not present a more alarming period than the interval between the 9th and the 16th of May. The language used at the numerous meetings indicated the bitterness of the disappointment which the people, or at least a certain portion of the people, felt, and their determination of having “the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill,” be the cost what it might. At a public meeting at Paddington, Mr. Hume told the multitude, “that military were marching upon the metropolis; and he asked whether, when other nations were free, they would submit to walk the streets with the brand of slavery upon them? whether they were prepared to bend before a military yoke?” He added that there were one hundred and fifty peers against them, but he did not know how many women, though he heard there were some. This allusion to the queen was immediately followed by groans; and shortly after her majesty, while taking an airing, was grossly insulted by the populace. In fact the king himself, at this period, learned the true value of the shoutings which had attended him as the personal protector of the reform bill. In one of the metropolitan unions a member was loudly applauded for declaring that till the reform bill was passed there was no William IV., but only a Duke of Clarence. The queen, also, was dragged forward, as an active enemy of the bill, to be made the theme of atrocious insult.

In the meantime the king found a difficulty in forming an administration. As soon as he had resolved to accept the resignation of his cabinet, he sent for Lord Lyndhurst, desiring that nobleman to obtain the opinion of parties respecting the advice which he had rejected, and also authorising him to adopt measures for the formation of a new ministry. At the same time his majesty declared, that “extensive reform was necessary, and was the express condition on which such a ministry must be based.” Lord Lyndhurst, on receiving his majesty’s commands, immediately waited upon the Duke of Wellington. The sentiments of his grace on the subject of reform had been fully and openly declared; but he, nevertheless, was found willing to make large sacrifices, and to encounter any obloquy, in order to extricate his majesty from embarrassment. He desired no office, he said, much less that of prime-minister; yet if necessary for the king’s service, he was ready to serve in any way that might be thought fit. After some consultation, these noble lords considered it advisable to offer the first place to Sir Robert Peel. He was asked if he would accept the office of prime-minister; on the clear understanding that he must carry through a measure of extensive reform, in fulfilment of his majesty’s declaration? Sir Robert replied that by an “extensive reform” he assumed to be understood all the principles of the bill, and that under such a condition, it was impossible to accept office: hostile as he uniformly had been to every plan of extensive reform, he felt that he could be of no service to the king or to the country. Lord Lyndhurst communicated the nature of his commission to several other influential persons, and they were not unwilling to take subordinate situations, but no one came forward as a leader. In the meantime Lord Ebrington’s motion interposed insurmountable difficulties in the way of negotiations. The new ministry was of necessity to be sought for among the opponents of the bill; office must be accepted in defiance of the lower house; and the utter hopelessness of any change from a dissolution of parliament was evident from the agitation already distracting the country. Lord Lyndhurst, therefore, was compelled to inform his majesty that the commission with which he had been entrusted had failed. The king was now reduced to the necessity of renewing his intercourse with his former ministers. On the 10th Earl Grey announced in the house of lords that he had that day received a communication from his majesty, though of too recent a date to be followed by any decided consequence. Both houses adjourned to the 17th; but before the commons separated, a debate took place on the presentation of the London petition, which for boldness of invective and declamation was scarcely ever surpassed. It turned chiefly on the supposed conduct of the Duke of Wellington, and some others, in accepting office under the peculiar circumstances of that period. On the 17th, however, the lords had no sooner met, than the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst gave an explanation of their conduct in this matter. The Duke of Wellington remarked:—“When his majesty found that he could not consistently with his duty to the state, follow the advice of his confidential servants, so little communication had he with men other than his responsible advisers, that he had had recourse to a nobleman, whose judicial functions took him almost out of the line of politics, to inquire whether means existed, and what means, of forming an administration on the principle of carrying into execution an extensive reform. That nobleman communicated to me the difficulties in which his majesty was placed, in order to ascertain how far it was in my power to assist in extricating him from them. With this view, I thought it my duty to institute similar inquiries of others, the rather as I was myself as unprepared as his majesty for the advice which his ministers had tendered, and for the consequences which had ensued from its being rejected. On inquiry I found that there was a large number of most influential persons not indisposed to support a government formed to aid his majesty in resisting the advice tendered to him by his late administration. Under this conviction I attended his majesty; and my advice to him was, not that he should appoint me Iris minister, but certain members of the other house of parliament. So far from seeking office for myself, I merely named those persons I thought best qualified for the service; adding, that, for my own part, whether I was in office or out of office, he and those persons might depend upon my most strenuous support. The object of this advice and tender of assistance was to enable his majesty to form an administration upon the principle of resisting the advice which he had just rejected. These are the first steps of the transaction; and I believe they show that, if ever there was an instance in which the king acted with honesty and fairness towards his servants, and if ever there was an instance in which public men, opposed to those servants, kept aloof from intrigue, and from the adoption of all means except the most honourable, in promoting their own views of the public weal, this was that individual instance; and I will add with reference to myself, that these transactions show that, so far from being actuated by those motives of personal aggrandizement, with which I have been charged by persons of high station in another place, my object was, that others should occupy a post of honour, and that for myself I was willing to serve in any capacity, or without any official capacity, so as to enable the crown to carry on the government.” Lord Lyndhurst, in explaining the part he had taken in the matter, bitterly complained of being calumniated by the press, which, he said, now reigned paramount over the legislature and the country. “As far as I am myself concerned,” he said, “I despise these calumnies. They may wound, however, the feelings of those allied to me by the dearest ties, and so far they are a source of pain to myself; but apart from the feelings of others, I hold them in the utmost scorn.” Several noble lords, although they had in no way been connected with the transactions which had been explained, declared that the conduct of the Duke of Wellington had been high-minded and disinterested. He had been hunted down day after day because he had dared to become minister; and it turned out that he had neither accepted nor sought office. Earl Grey expressed his surprise that the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst should have indulged in violent invective against the reform bill and ministers, and “dinned their lordships’ ears” with denunciations of the measure, and declarations that the bill, instead of saving, would tend to the destruction of that house and of the monarchy. He thought differently. There were clangers, not imaginary or hypothetical, but substantial and imminent, both to that house and to the monarchy, to be apprehended from proceedings which tended to a collision between the hereditary and representative branches of the constitution. He concluded by declaring that his continuance in office must depend on his conviction of his own ability to carry into full effect the bill on their lordships’ table, unimpaired in principle and all essential details. The Earl of Carnarvon said, that if he could venture to make any comment on the reasons assigned for the proceedings of ministers, he would say that they had hurried on in their violent course, because they feared that if their opponents were permitted to introduce their measures, not all the power and influence of ministers could have produced a collision between the two houses. It was his duty, as the continued day for the committee had been fixed on his motion, now to get rid of it. He therefore moved that “the order for the committee on the reform bill be discharged.” He added:—“Thus I leave it to other noble lords to do their dirty work.” The order was accordingly discharged.

On Friday, the 18th of May, on the assembling of the peers, the Earl of Harewood asked Earl Grey whether it was yet settled that ministers were to continue in office? His lordship answered, that in consequence of having received the king’s request to that effect, and in consequence of now finding himself in a situation which would enable him to carry through the bill unimpaired in its efficiency, he and his colleagues did remain in office. He moved that the committee on the bill, under these circumstances, should be taken on Monday. The Earl of Harewood continued, that he had understood the continuance of Earl Grey in office depended on the power he should receive to carry the reform bill—a power which might be conferred by the creation of peers, or by the act and will of certain lords in seceding from their opposition to the bill. In the choice of these two evils, it was his duty to select the lesser. He had opposed the bill on the second reading, and he would likewise have opposed many of its details in the committee, but the wiser course would be now to withhold further opposition to the bill, rather than render the calamity of creating a great number of peers unavoidable. But though he adopted this course, let it be understood that it was by compulsion, and with a feeling that he never would again enjoy an opportunity of uttering in that house one word in an independent form. Bidding farewell to freedom of debate, let those who had brought this infliction on the country be responsible for their acts when the nation came to its senses. On the other hand, the Earl of Winchilsea, while he admitted that the independence of the house was at an end, and that their lordships might be pointed at with scorn, as belonging to a body which went through the mockery of legislative functions while it was denied all legislative power, expressed his determination still to offer every possible opposition to the bill. Earl Grey had not yet stated in what shape the power of carrying the bill had been conferred; and Lord Wharncliffe, conceiving that before any peer could decide on the course he would adopt, it was necessary to know, put the question direct to him, whether their deliberations were to be carried on under the immediate threat of a creation of peers? or whether it was to be understood that a certain number of peers would absent themselves from the house on the occasion of the discussions that might ensue upon the bill? Earl Grey replied, “I do not feel myself called on to answer the questions which have been put to me by the noble baron. I have already stated to your lordships that I continue to hold office under the expectation that the bill will be successfully carried in its future stages through this house. I do not consider that the noble lord has any right to call on me for any further explanation; and I will add, that I wish to be bound only by what I state myself.” Lord Wharncliffe rejoined, that he could come to no conclusion as to what course he should take until he saw more clearly the real position in which their lordships were placed. The noble earl opposite had no right to call for any statement as to the course his opponents meant to pursue when he hesitated to communicate his own. The Earl of Carnarvon repeated Lord Wharncliffe’s question, whether it was intended to create peers? but the minister replied that it was a question which ought not to be put, and one which he would not answer. The motion for going into committee on Monday was agreed to.

Although ministers, however, refused to give any answer as to the intended creation of peers, it was soon known that this power was assured to them—at least, as an alternative or an expedient. Sir Herbert Taylor, in the name and by the authority of the king, wrote a circular note to the opposition peers, stating his majesty’s wish that they should facilitate the passing of the bill by absenting themselves from the house when any important part of the measure to which they could not consent came under discussion. Such a request implied that his majesty desired it, as the only means of avoiding the creation of a number of peers; and the opposition lords,—that is, the majority,—understanding the hint, were thus compelled to abandon for a time their rights and duties as legislators. During the remainder of the discussions on the bill, therefore, not more than between thirty or forty attended at a time. The king and the lords were equally opposed to this measure, but both were compelled to bend to the will of the house of commons.

A similar announcement to that which Earl Grey made in the lords was made in the commons by Lord Althorp. This announcement stopped another address to the king in the house of commons, which Lord Milton intended to have brought forward, and furnished to Sir Robert Peel an opportunity of explaining the share he had taken in the late negotiations to form a new administration.

REFORM BILL PASSED.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

The committee on the bill was resumed on Monday, the 21st of May, and, as was natural, it now passed rapidly through the upper house. The inverted order of the schedules, taken up at Lord Lyndhurst’s suggestion, was adopted, though in a very different spirit from that which was in the noble mover’s mind. Schedule C was voted at the first sitting up to the Tower Hamlets; and next day the clauses on the Tower Hamlets, to which so many objections had been raised, were passed. Lord Ellenborough wished the county of Lancashire to be divided into three districts, each retaining two members, he conceiving that as the bill now stood the agricultural interest of that county would be utterly helpless; but there were only fifteen peers who ventured to vote with him, while seventy-five adhered to the bill. The bill, in fact, passed, with some few slight verbal alterations, on the 4th of June, one hundred and sixty voting for it, and twenty-two against it. The bill was now ordered back to the commons, and the amendments of their lordships having been agreed to on the following day without any discussion regarding their merits, the royal assent was given to the bill by commission on the 7th of June.

IRISH AND SCOTCH REFORM BILLS PASSED.

It was easy to foresee that the English reform bill having passed, those relating to Scotland and Ireland would be equally triumphant. Deliberation was, in point of fact, at an end. Both bills had been read a first time, and had awaited on the table of the house of commons the fate of the English bill in the house of lords. The bill relating to Scotland was read in the commons on the 21st of May, the day on which the restored ministry resumed the committee in the lords on the English bill. No resistance was made to the second reading, the opposition knowing that it was hopeless, and feeling assured that this measure must follow as part of the general scheme, all the elements of which had triumphed in regard to England. Various amendments were moved in the committee, but they were all rejected by large majorities, and it passed the third reading unmutilated. In the house of lords also, as in the commons, no opposition was made to the second reading, and it passed that house on the 13th of July, The Irish bill called forth more resistance than that of Scotland, though its triumph from the first was equally certain. Mr. Lefroy moved, on its re-introduction, that it should be read that day six months. He said, that if a reform bill was to be passed at all, the present measure, in so far as the country representation was concerned, was not very objectionable; but he could discover no advantage to be derived from it in respect to the alterations in the boroughs. Seven of these boroughs had sent reformers to parliament, and eight possessed an open constituency. In the others the constituency varied from twelve to ninety-four, and none of them could be called decayed boroughs; on the contrary, they were more flourishing than at the time when they received the franchise. Of the one hundred Irish members, eighty-three were popularly returned. Where then, he asked, was the necessity or expediency of the measure? Would any rational man have deemed a reform bill necessary in England under such circumstances? And while the bill was unnecessary, he continued, it was also dangerous—dangerous not merely to the Protestant church of Ireland, but to the sister church of England, and the integrity of the empire. The fall of the Irish church would endanger the connection between the two countries. The leader of the Catholic population in Ireland had told them to choose reformers as the best means of opening the way to repealers; yet it was proposed by opening the boroughs to put them into the hands of this party—a party whose influence would be increased to an extent that no government would have power to oppose. The amendment was seconded by Lord Castlereagh, and supported by Messrs. Shaw, Conolly, and Gordon, who all said that the bill would be ruinous to the Protestant interest in Ireland. Messrs. O’Connell and Shiel defended the bill against the objections urged by the supporters of the amendment, but pointed out other defects, which they expressed a hope would be remedied in the committee. For instance, the name of the ten-pound franchise had been given to Ireland without the reality; the Irish and English freeholders, from the nature of their tenures, and the disproportion between their means, were in opposite positions to each other. In respect to houses also, the franchise was too high; and, instead of being the instrument of reform, it would be productive of corruption. Thus Portarlington, which was formerly sold by a single proprietor, would now be sold by one hundred members. In England, no man was called upon to show his title unless by previous notice; but in Ireland a scrutinising assistant-barrister examined it without any process being-served on the man who came to vote. In Ireland, also, half-a-crown was the sum paid for registry; in England it was a shilling only. Was this equality? Was this union? Could this conduce to the continuance of the union between the two countries? But while he found so much in the bill of an objectionable nature, he would support it for the good it would effect; he would support it because it would strike down the corporation of Dublin, and because it would open the borough of Belfast, whose representative had hitherto been appointed by the noble Marquis of Donegal, like his groom or his footman. After a few words of opposition from Sir Robert Peel, the house divided on the second reading, and it was carried by two hundred and forty-six against one hundred and thirty.

It was in the committee that the attacks of the Irish reformers against the bill commenced in reality. The emancipation act had been accompanied by the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. Mr. O’Connell moved that it should be an instruction to the committee to restore the franchise to these freeholders. The Irish reform bill exhibited gross injustice. England was to have thirty members more than had originally been contemplated, but Ireland was not to derive any such advantage. It was always the way when Ireland was concerned; her aid was invoked in the battle, but when the division of the spoil came, she was forgotten. And in the present instance insult had been added to injury. The Scotch bill had been brought forward by a Scotch legal luminary. Was there no Irish gentleman to whom ministers could entrust the Irish reform bill? Ministers wished to put an end to agitation in Ireland. But how did they set about it? By perpetrating an act of injustice, which would perpetuate agitation. The amendment was supported by Mr. Shiel, who contended that the restoration of the forty-shilling freeholders was just in principle, because it would assimilate the constituency of England and Ireland, and because it would conciliate the people of Ireland without being detrimental to England. Ministers replied, that if the proposed instruction was carried, it would have, the effect of impeding, if not ultimately defeating, the measure. Mr. O’Connell’s motion was lost! by a majority-of one hundred and twenty-two against seventy-three; and he immediately moved, as a modification of it; that “the franchise should be restored to persons seized of an estate for three lives, renewable for ever, of the yearly value of forty shillings, provided that the rent did not exceed four pounds per annum, of which one-third was to be profit, and provided also that the renewal fee did net exceed two-pounds.” This was opposed by Mr. Stanley, on the ground, that it would create a minute subdivision of independent, property, and by that means would also create an immense multitude of independent voters. The motion, was not pressed to a division; and Mr. O’Connell then took up the subject of the increase of representation in Ireland. Of the five additional members, one was to be given to the University of Dublin, which was now to return two members; and Mr. O’Connell and his party objected to this arrangement, because it would strengthen the Protestant interest. Sir Robert Heron moved as an instruction to the committee, that the University of Dublin should continue to return only one member. The motion was opposed by Mr. Crampton, the solicitor-general of Ireland, who vindicated the character of the electors of Dublin University from the attacks which the Irish reformers made upon it. The proposal was rejected by a large majority: and Mr. O’Connell returned to the attack by moving, as an instruction to the committee, to extend the franchise to persons occupying freehold estates of the yearly value of five pounds. His motion was founded on this reasoning—that, as Ireland was a poorer country, a ten-pound qualification in England was a twenty-pound qualification in Ireland, and the constituency of the latter would consequently be curtailed. In his speech, he said that the object of all parties seemed to be to exclude the people of Ireland as much as possible from the enjoyment of the franchise. He was justified in making this charge, when he saw two members given to Trinity College, Dublin, in the constituency of which it was impossible there should be a Roman Catholic voter. If the system was acted on, the Catholic question still remained to be settled. Mr. Stanley complained of the unreasonable conduct of Irish members, and especially of Mr. O’Connell, who first desired alterations in the bill, and then complained that it was no longer the same. The change in the plan of registration, he said, had been recommended by Sir Henry Darnel. An alteration had also been made in the leasehold from twenty-one years to fourteen, and this was done at the instance of Irish members. Mr. O’Connell himself had entreated ministers to omit the fifty-pound qualification, which was complied with: but he had hardly effected his purpose, when he turned round and accused the government of making unfavourable alterations in the bill. Members might be astonished, but it was fact, that he had given notice of a motion for the restoration of a qualification which was omitted on his own suggestion. This motion was likewise rejected; as was another, made by Mr. Mullins, to extend the franchise in counties to leaseholders for nineteen years, at a rent of thirty pounds. Ministers, however, yielded something in the committee by consenting to extend the franchise to leaseholders for twenty years, having a beneficial interest to the amount of ten pounds. Mr. Shiel divided the house without success, to get rid of a proviso that required ten-pound voters in boroughs to pay all municipal taxes. The recorder of Dublin was equally unsuccessful in a motion tending to place Irish freemen on the same footing with their brethren in English boroughs; that is, to have their rights as freemen perpetuated, instead of terminating with the lives of those existing, as provided in the Irish bill Before the bill left the committee, Mr. Dominick Browne, one of the members for the county of Mayo, proposed a different plan for Ireland; but his proposition was not entertained by the house. The bill passed the commons on the 18th of July, and was read a second time in the lords on the 23rd. No division took place; but the Duke of Wellington stated at length his objections to the measure, which were replied to by Lord Plunkett. The bill passed through the committee in the peers almost without discussion. The only amendment of importance was one which had been rejected in the commons; namely, to place the rights of freemen in boroughs on the same footing on which they stood in the English bill, by continuing them in perpetuity instead of confining them simply to the children of freemen born after the passing of the bill. When the bill returned to the commons, Mr. Stanley declared that he felt a strong repugnance to this amendment. It was, however, allowed to stand, and by the first week of August all the three bills had received the royal assent.

BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS, ETC.

Soon after, the reform bill was carried the house of commons was filled with complaints, that, in its working, it was producing, extensive disfranchisement among the new constituencies. It was required by the English bill, that the intended voter should have paid up by the 20th of July all rates and taxes, payable in the preceding April in respect of the premises on which he claimed. That period was now past, and the non-payers were so numerous as greatly to diminish the new constituencies. Under these circumstances Lord Althorp, on the 7th of August, moved for leave to bring in a bill “for allowing further time for persons to pay the poor-rates, in pursuance of an act passed in the present session to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales.” This was resisted on the ground that the act contained no clause allowing it to be altered, during the present session, and that the proposition was a breach of pledge. The house, it was said, had fully discussed and finally passed a measure effecting a great and extensive change in the constitution of the country, and that measure had gone forth to the country as being the final act of those who had originated it; yet it was now proposed to make an alteration in one of its most essential provisions. The alteration proposed was not unreasonable in itself; but there was danger in permitting any alteration to be made with respect to the reform act. Who could say, if changes were to be made, when they would stop? Lord Althorp argued that there were precedents which would enable the house to get over the difficulty in point of form, but as the bill was to be opposed, and as, in that case, it could not be carried through before the 20th of August, he would withdraw it altogether; he was the more ready to do so, because he thought that the inconvenience had been exaggerated. The subject, however, was taken up by Colonel Evans, who thought that a great number of tax and rate payers entitled to vote were defaulters, and therefore not able to enjoy their franchise. He moved a resolution, which, after adverting to the disfranchisement likely to arise, suggested that the mischief might be remedied by substituting for “the 6th of April,” in the 27th clause of the reform act, “the 25th of September last” for the payment of the poor rates, and the “10th of October last” for the payment of the assessed taxes. This motion was only supported by two members, yet the colonel brought the matter before the house again on the 10th of August, by moving “that an address be presented to his majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to prorogue the present, and convene another short session of parliament, to take into consideration the unexpected disfranchisement produced by certain restrictive clauses of the act for amending the representation of the people in parliament.” This motion was opposed by ministers, and was not pressed to a division. It had become clear, indeed, that many of the statements concerning the number of non-payers were without good foundation, and therefore there was no reason for altering the clause. About the same time objections were raised to the boundaries of boroughs as laid down by the commissioners whom ministers had employed, principally on the ground of the influence which, it was supposed, had here and there been given to individuals, by adding large portions of their lands to boroughs. It was objected, for instance, that, in the case of Whitehaven, a rural district, comprehending thirty voters, had been added to a borough containing three hundred. It was said that this was done to conciliate opposition; as this district was the property of Lord Lonsdale, it was stated, he would acquire by its junction with the town a preponderating influence. An amendment was made to exclude it, but ministers resisted it, and it was lost. Lord Althorp said, that nobody who knew the state of parties would believe in these theories of conciliation; and that Lord Lonsdale would have no more influence in the borough than the legitimate influence to which rank and property entitled their possessor. A similar objection was stated against the boundary allotted to Stamford, which was followed by a similar motion of exclusion; but it found only nineteen supporters, while one hundred and seventy-two voted against it.

Another measure connected with the changes in the representation was a bill brought in to amend and render more effectual the laws relating to bribery and corruption in elections. Lord John Russell, who brought in the bill, stated that its principal object was to subject all cases of bribery to a more complete investigation. With that view, the bill extended the term for presenting petitions complaining of bribery at elections from fourteen days to two years; and provided that it would be lawful for any person to petition the house during that period, complaining that the election of any particular borough had been carried by bribery and corruption. The bill also provided that where the parties complained of undue elections in consequence of bribery, if they proved their case, all their costs and expenses in sustaining their petition should be defrayed by the public. Objections were urged against this measure from both sides of the house. It was argued, that the extension of the period for petitioning would keep members in a state of vassalage for two years; that a new petition might be presented every week, if it only related to a different alleged act; and that the terms which defined what bribery was were so vague, and yet so comprehensive, that it was impossible for a member to know whether a charge could be brought against him or not. Some members thought that nothing but the ballot would prevent bribery, while others suggested that every member on entering the house should take an oath that he had neither given, nor promised to give, or would promise hereafter, by himself, his agents, or friends, any money, security, order, or other thing of value, or any pecuniary fee, or reward of any kind, in consideration of any vote or votes, by which his return to that house had been promoted or served. The bill passed the commons; but when it came to the lords its postponement for six months was moved by Lord Wynford, and the lord chancellor agreeing with him as to the impossibility of carrying its provisions into effect, the bill was thrown out.

During the discussion on the reform question, one strong objection against the destruction of nomination-boroughs had been, that without them there would be no certain means of members who vacated their seats by accepting office of securing a new return. In order to obviate this inconvenience, the Marquis of Northampton brought in a bill to repeal, in so far as certain offices were concerned, the act of Queen Anne, by which an acceptance of any of them vacated a member’s seat. On the motion for the second reading of this bill, the Duke of Wellington said there could be no doubt that some measure of this description was necessary; but it appeared to him that the present bill was only a half measure, because it provided for only half of the inconvenience likely to result. He also objected to the bill being brought forward in the individual capacity of the noble marquis. As the inconvenience would arise from a government measure, government should introduce a remedy, and recommend it to both houses of parliament upon their own responsibility. The lord-chancellor likewise thought that the second reading should be delayed till the matter had been more ripely considered. The second reading, therefore, was postponed, and, as the end of the session approached, the bill was ultimately laid aside. The last subject of direct reform in the representation was introduced by Mr. Bulwer, who moved an address to the king, praying that his majesty would give the free inhabitants of New South Wales a representative system. He grounded their title to it on the score both of population and taxation; but while ministers admitted that New South Wales must in time have a representative body, they did not think the elements had yet been formed out of which a safe constituency could be created, and the motion was negatived.

COMMITTEES ON IRISH TITHES.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832—1833}

In the speech from the throne, on the opening of parliament, there was this clause:—“In parts of Ireland a systematic opposition has been made to the payment of tithes, attended in some instances with afflicting results; and it will be one of your first duties to inquire whether it may not be possible to effect improvements in the laws respecting this subject, which may afford the necessary protection to the established church, and at the same time remove the present causes of complaint.” Both houses, during this session, appointed select committees to inquire into the collection and payment of tithes in Ireland, and the state of the laws relating thereto. The report of the committee of the house of lords was presented on the 16th of February, and that of the commons on the 17th. The report stated that in different parts of Ireland resistance had been made to the payment of tithes, by means of organised, illegal, and in some instances armed combinations, which, if allowed to extend themselves successfully to other districts, would be applied to other objects, and ultimately subvert the dominion of the law, and endanger the peace and security of society. In many districts the report further stated, where resistance had been made to the payment of tithes, the clergy had been reduced to the greatest distress; and in order to obviate this, the committee recommended that his majesty should be empowered to advance to the incumbent, where tithes or compositions had been illegally withheld, or to his representatives, sums not exceeding the amount of the arrears due for the tithes of the year 1836, proportioned to the income of each, according to a scale diminishing as their incomes increased. It further recommended that as a security for repayment of the sums so advanced, his majesty should be empowered to levy, under the authority of a law to be passed for that purpose, the amount of arrears due for the tithes of the year 1831, without prejudice to the claims of the clergy for any arrear that might be due for a longer period. Where the arrears were due in a compounded parish, the sum to be advanced was to be regulated by the composition, and where there was no special agreement, by an average of the produce of the tithe for the years 1827, 1828, and 1829. As the crown was to become entitled to the arrears, it was recommended that the attorney-general should be empowered to sue for them, either by petition in chancery or exchequer, or by civil bill at the county quarter-session. On the tithe system, the committee stated that they had seen sufficient to satisfy them, “that with a view to serve both the interests of the church and the lasting welfare of Ireland, a permanent change of system will be required: that such a change, to be safe and satisfactory, must involve a complete extinction of tithes, including those belonging to lay impropriators, by commuting them for a charge upon land, or an exchange for or investment in land, so as effectually to secure the revenues of the church, so far as relates to tithes, and at the same time to remove all pecuniary collisions between the clergymen and the tithe-payer, which, at present, were unavoidable.” On the 8th of March, the Marquis of Lansdowne in the upper house, and Mr. Stanley in the commons, moved resolutions adopting and embodying the recommendations of the report. In the lords no opposition was offered to them, but in the commons it did not pass so readily. Mr. Stanley said that as he intended to state the whole plan which government had in contemplation, with all its details, he should move for that purpose that the house should resolve itself into a committee on the report; a course which he deemed advisable, because it would put it into his power to give every explanation which might be required, and to take the opinion of the committee separately on each of the resolutions. This motion was sternly opposed by the Irish members. Mr. Brownlow led the attack, by maintaining that the report was too partial and imperfect to be made the subject of consideration in committee. He moved “that the debate be adjourned, until the committee had gone into a full inquiry into the subject of tithes, and the appropriation of church property in Ireland, and until the evidence and report of the committee came before parliament.” In support of the amendment, Mr. Shiel said that the Irish members did not oppose the resolutions: they only said, “Wait for the final report, and do not decide on a document resting on one-sided evidence.” Catholics, he said, had been excluded from the committee, and only one out of eighteen Catholic witnesses had been examined. Was this just, or fair dealing? It was as if a jury were desired to retire on the closing of the plaintiff’s case. They find their verdict; judgment is given; and then the defendant was desired to proceed with her case. If the committee had confined themselves to the recommendation of assisting the clergy, the Irish members would not have complained; but while they came with a purse of gold for the church, they also came with a rod of iron for the people. Mr. Shiel proceeded next to discuss the plan which was supposed to be unknown, in doing which he discovered the true objection of the Irish members to it, namely, that the Protestant church of Ireland was still to be preserved. Other Irish members urged the same objections; and added, that if every thing else in the supposed plan were right, it was wrong to pay the arrears to the clergy, and then ask repayment by coercive measures. Lord Ebrington, who had been on the committee, and concurred in its report, now sided with the Irish members. Sir Robert Peel said that the discussion on the anticipated propositions was foreign to the question before the house. The question was, whether the propositions should be explained now, or after the house had gone into a committee. Pie thought that the latter was the course most conformable to the practice of the house; and by supporting a motion to that effect, no member pledged himself in the least to the proposition of the government. Lord Althorp and Mr. Stanley complained of the course the Irish members had taken in commenting on propositions of which they knew nothing; and on a division the amendment of the Irish members was lost by an overwhelming majority.

The committee was delayed till the 18th, on which day Mr. Stanley moved a series of resolutions similar to those which had been agreed to by the lords. The first of these resolutions was, “That it appears to the house that in several parts of Ireland, an organised and systematic opposition has been made to the payment of tithes, by which the law has been rendered unavailing, and many of the clergy of the established church have been reduced to great distress.” Mr. Stanley entered at great length into the evidence which proved both parts of this resolution. It was quite clear from the evidence that a system of opposition had been established in Ireland to the payment of tithes, which could not be overcome by ordinary means. Every plan had been adopted by which the operations of the law might be traversed. Tithe-proctors and process-servants were violently assailed; impediments were interposed to prevent the seizure and sale of cattle; and, in a word, every system of determined and organised opposition was manifested that could be displayed by a whole population acting as one man against the payment of a claim legally due. Having proved the truth of the first resolution, Mr. Stanley proceeded to the second, which provided means of relief. It read thus:—“That, in order to afford relief to the distress, it is expedient that his majesty should be empowered, upon the application of the lord-lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, to direct that there be issued from the consolidated fund such sums as may be required for this purpose. That the sums so issued shall be distributed by the lord-lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, by and with the advice of the privy-council, in advances proportioned to the incomes of the incumbents of benefices wherein the tithes, or tithe composition lawfully due may have been withheld, according to a scale diminishing as the incomes of such incumbents increase.” To this resolution Mr. Stanley said that he did not anticipate any objection, inasmuch as it was from no fault of the clergy that the resistance, and the consequent distress had arisen. He then proceeded to the third resolution, which provided for the reimbursement of the sums advanced:—“That, for the more effectual vindication of the authority of the law, and as a security for the repayment of the sums to be advanced, his majesty may be empowered to levy, under the authority of an act to be passed for this purpose, the amount of arrears for the tithes or tithe-composition of the whole or any part of the year 1831, without prejudice to the claims of the clergy for any arrear which may be due for a longer period; reserving, in the first instance, the amount of such advances, and paying over the remaining balance to the legal claimants.” The last resolution pledged the house to an alteration of the existing tithe system on some principle of commutation, though Mr. Stanley said he was not prepared to state the nature of the change. Those who dissented from the resolutions consisted chiefly of the Irish members, and, singular enough, their opposition was chiefly confined to the last resolution. This was, it was said, to introduce a change of system, but it implied that the tithe was still to be a fund available to the established church. It was said to be unjust to demand extraordinary powers for the execution of a law acknowledged to be bad and mischievous, and that every renewed attempt to recover tithes by coercion would only hasten the ruin of the church establishment in Ireland. Some adjustment must be made by which the church property should be applied to the support of the three prominent sects in Ireland, instead of its being bestowed exclusively on one, which only comprehended about a third of the population. It was admitted at the same time that it was right to relieve the clergy who were suffering; but it was asserted that the resolutions held out no hope of any substantial amendment of the existing state of things. Mr. Shiel argued that the last resolution did not pledge the house not to appropriate church property as it might deem fit, and insinuated that this was what the ministry meant, though they could not venture to speak it out plainly. Sir Robert Peel supported the plan of the ministry, for, although hostile, he said, on general principles, to pledges that the house would do something at a future period, he thought that the interests of religion and the Protestant church required that the present case should be made an exception. As to the proposal to delay the question till the committee should have given a full report, he deemed it unnecessary and mischievous. If the spirit of combination was to be checked, it should be so at once; it would be true mercy to check it as soon as possible, for any delay would only add wings to its already rapid progress. The first resolution was agreed to finally without a division. On the second, Mr. Hunt divided the house, as he did not think the distress of the clergy in Ireland was such as to warrant money being taken out of the pockets of the people of this country for their relief. He was, however, only supported by eleven members, while eighty-six voted for the resolution. The third then passed without a division, and an amendment on the fourth was negatived without being put to the vote, so that the whole were carried. The bill was brought in to be read a second time on the 6th of April, when the Irish opposition pressed for a delay on the ground that it was inconsistent with sound policy to carry through this coercive measure before introducing the other measure for the change or extinction of tithes; that if the arrangements regarding the latter were complicated and required delay, that was the best reason for delaying the former, and that Mr. Stanley, the Irish secretary, ought to take advantage of the Easter recess, then approaching, to pay a visit to Ireland. Ministers resisted all delay, however, and the second reading was carried by a majority of one hundred and nineteen against twenty-one. It was read a third time, without much discussion, on the 16th of April; and in the house of lords, where the resolutions had been agreed to, the bill was passed without opposition.

The tithe-committees still continued their investigations, and on the 25th of June Mr. Stanley stated to the house of commons the measures which ministers intended to recommend for the final settlement of the questions connected with tithes. Three bills were to be introduced: the first, to make the composition act permanent and compulsory, and to render it at the same time more equitable and effective in some of its details; the second, constituting the bishop and beneficed clergy of each diocese into a corporation for the purpose of receiving the tithes for the whole body, and dividing them for their common benefit in the proportion to which the respective parties would be entitled: and the third, providing for a commutation of the tithe on the same principle as the land-tax redemption in England, or the redemption of quit-rents in Ireland—that is, that the party liable to the charge might redeem it, and the money thus paid for redemption would go to a fund as a provision for the clergy in the proportions to which they were at present entitled. Mr. Stanley explained the principles of these three bills at great length; but stated that it was not intended to carry all of them through the house at so late a period of the session. And this, he continued, was not necessary, as the first and second were independent of the third. He moved therefore for leave to bring in a bill for making the tithe-composition act compulsory, and the composition permanent, and another for establishing the ecclesiastical corporations. Subsequently the latter of these was delayed, and the composition bill only pressed on. The motion for this was opposed by Mr. J. Grattan, who moved as an amendment the following resolutions:—“That it is essential to the peace of Ireland that the system of tithes in that country should be extinguished, not in name only, but in substance, and unequivocally: That in coming to this resolution we recognise the rights of persons having vested interests, and declare that it is the duty of parliament to provide for those persons by making them a just compensation: That we also recognise the liability of property in Ireland to contribute to a fund for supporting and promoting religion and charity; but that such may and ought to be quite different in the mode of collection, and much lighter in effect than that raised by the system of tithes: That we are also of opinion that the mode of levying and the application of such fund and its distribution ought to be left to the decision of a reformed parliament.” As the session was drawing near to a close, the opposition seemed to entertain hopes of rendering the measure abortive by mere opposition. Ministers were first compelled to adjourn the debate from the 3rd of July to the 10th, and on the 10th it was found necessary to adjourn it again to the 13th. On that day, after stern opposition from the Irish members, and especially Mr. O’Connell, who descanted in his usual strain on the “insulting contempt with which all Irish affairs were treated,” a division took place on Mr. Grattan’s resolutions, which were rejected by a large majority, and then the bill passed the second reading without opposition, and the house went into committee. Mr. Stanley in opening the ministerial propositions had adverted to the payment of church-cess and church-rates by Catholics, and expressed an opinion that they might be got rid of by a proper application of the first-fruits. Mr. Shiel moved that “the committee should be instructed to recite in the preamble of the bill, that the tithe composition should be extended, with the view to the levying of first-fruits according to their real value, and to such future appropriation of them to the purposes of religion, education, and charity, as, after making a due provision for the maintenance of the church, should to parliament seem proper.” Mr. Shiel said that the preamble already set forth that the bill was to effect a commutation. The government, however, ought not to stop there: they had declared that they intended to relieve the people from the church-rate, by levying their first-fruits to their full extent, and it was their object to ascertain the full amount of tithes through Ireland in order to tax the church. The committee, also, had reported that the people ought to be relieved in this particular: wherefore then was it not set forth in the preamble? They should be embodied in the bill, and the legislature should give an earnest of their determination to rescue the Irish nation from the most odious imposition in the annals of ecclesiastical taxation, the erection of temples with which the people had no concern. Mr. Stanley, in reply, admitted that he agreed in the principle that the fund arising from the first-fruits should be made available for the repair and erection of churches. When asked, however, “Why not say in the preamble of this bill that there should be an abolition of church-cess and rates for the future?” he said he was not prepared to go to that extent. If he consented to the introduction of these words into the preamble, he should be doubtless told that church-rates were abolished, and that the people of Ireland so understood it. He did not wish, he said, to declare that to be the object of the bill which was not its object, however it might be likely to be effected by the passing of the bill. On a division Mr. Shiel’s motion was rejected by seventy-nine to eighteen. The bill now proceeded without further delay, and was passed by the commons and the lords. On the second reading in the upper house the Duke of Wellington expressed a wish that it should pass unanimously, he believing it to be the commencement of a series of measures which had the pacification of Ireland for their object.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

As the reform bill and the management of Ireland were the great business of this session, matters of trade did not occupy much attention in parliament. The chancellor of the exchequer made his financial statements on the 27th of July, when it appeared that in the quarter of the year ending on the 5th of January, there had been a deficiency of £700,000, making the revenue of that quarter fall short of the estimate by no less a sum than £1,200,000; ministers having calculated on a surplus of £500,000. The revenue in the year 1830, the chancellor of the exchequer said, was £50,056,616, while the expenditure was £47,142,943, leaving a surplus of £2,913,673. The expenditure of 1831 ending in 1832 was within £19,664 of that of 1830; but this equality did not proceed from an equality of votes in the two years, because in the latter year there arose, from the reduction of four per cents., a saving of £777,443. After entering into minute particulars of the receipts and expenditure, with the savings which government had effected, the chancellor of the exchequer said, that upon the whole there was a decrease of income in 1831, as compared with 1830, of £3,682,176. From this, if the surplus, which would have accrued if the income had been equal to the expenditure in that year, that was £2,933,319, were deducted, there would be an excess of expenditure in 1831 over the income amounting to £698,857. The state of the revenue, therefore, in the commencement of 1832, was, that instead of having a surplus of £2,913,673, as in the commencement of 1831, the expenditure of 1831 being £19,646 below that of 1830, there was a falling off to the amount he had already shown; and the real excess of expenditure over income in 1831 was the sum of £698,857. Lord Althorp attributed this deficiency chiefly to the reduction of taxation in 1830. The whole reduction of taxation in 1831 amounted to £4,780,000. From this, if £3,364,412 were deducted as the loss on customs and excise, there would be a balance of £1,414,588; a clear proof that the resources of the country had increased by nearly a million and a half in the consumption of articles not affected by taxation. He owned he had been too sanguine in the calculation he had made of increased consumption from reduced taxation, but it was satisfactory to observe that, notwithstanding the great reduction of taxation, the deficiency in the revenue had been so small. He felt it right to state, he continued, that the deficiency at the end of the year was increased in the April quarter, the amount in that quarter being £1,240,413. Finding this deficiency his majesty’s ministers had endeavoured to meet it, not by an increase of taxation, but by a reduction of expenditure. They had lowered the estimates by more than £2,000,000, and had reduced official salaries and appointments to the utmost of their power. In two years, the reductions they had made in salaries and officers amounted to £334,353. Lord Althorp next entered into a statement of the gradual decrease of the surplus, and then proceeded to the estimates for the year ending-April, 1833. He calculated that the expenditure of the year ending April, 1833, would be £45,696,376, which would be £2,162,051 less than that for the year ending in April, 1832. He next proceeded to give a comparative estimate of the income as it was in April, 1832, and as he calculated it to be for 1833. From the various items he expected a total of £46,470,000; deduct from that £45,696,376, as the amount of expenditure, and it left a surplus for the year ending in April, 1833, of £773,624. Against this, however, was to be set the deficiency of 1832, amounting to £1,240,413, and take from that sum the surplus of £773,624 for 1833, and it would leave a deficiency on the two years of £466,789. Mr. Goulburn contended that, according to the noble lord’s statement, there would be a deficiency at the end of the current year, on account of 1832, although in this year there was a surplus. After a few words from Sir Robert Peel, however, who questioned the reality of the reductions made by government, the financial arrangements were carried without opposition.

COMMITTEE ON THE CHARTER OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY, ETC.

On the 27th of January the president of the board of control moved the appointment of a committee upon the affairs of the East India Company, and to inquire into the state of trade between Great Britain, the East Indies, and China. This was, in fact, only the reappointment of a committee which had sat during previous sessions; but the president hinted that as the charter would expire in April, 1834, and the East India Company had declined to make itself a party to the discussion, it would be necessary that the government should take a more direct management of the question, though without intimating its intentions, so as not to disappoint expectations. It would be necessary to carry this proposal into effect, he said, to have a considerable number of sub-committees, at least six or seven, each taking a separate branch of the inquiry. In the East India House, and in the board of control, the business was divided into six departments, each division having its separate functionaries; and he proposed, therefore, that there should be at least six sub-committees, each taking one of these departments. As it was necessary, he continued, to provide for the absence of members, and as five or six members would be necessary in each subcommittee, he should propose that there should be at least forty-eight or forty-nine in the committee. The present committee, he added, would have this advantage, that, the subject was not entirely new. A large mass of testimony had been obtained; and though the evidence had not been systematically collected, yet the materials were in preparation, and the committee would be supplied with them. In addition to this the board of control had for some time been preparing for the discussion, officers having been employed in classifying the evidence laid before both houses, and in separating the different branches of the evidence. The committee was appointed without opposition. Subsequently, the chancellor of the exchequer proposed the appointment of “a committee of secrecy, to inquire into, and report upon the expediency of renewing the charter of the Bank of England; and also on the existing system of banking by banks of issue in England and Wales.” The circumstance which gave rise to this motion was the renewal of the charter with the Bank of England. As the occasion of a renewal of that charter had always been considered the proper time for an inquiry into the banking system, and had been looked forward to by the public as a proper season for taking the principles of the Bank of England into consideration, therefore the proposition was made. In making the proposal, the chancellor of the exchequer said that he trusted the house would agree in the propriety of making it a committee of secrecy, in order to prevent any discussions in that house upon the subject pending the inquiry; on such a question, involving the money transactions of the country, nothing could be more objectionable than these discussions. As to the questions which the committee would have to consider, they would have first to decide whether the charter should be renewed, and then, in case of renewal, whether any, and what exclusive privileges should be given to the Bank. Another question for their consideration would be the existing system of banking with reference to banks of issue; and they would likewise have to consider the Bank of England in its quality of banker to the state. It was not, however, intended that the committee should go into the question of the currency; it was to confine itself to banking, properly so called. But one exception to this would be found in the one-pound notes: it would be impossible to exclude that question from the consideration of the committee, if they should consider it was necessary to enter upon it. It was thought by some members that it would be better to restrict the committee from entering into that question, and by others that it would be better to delay the whole subject till a new parliament. In substance, in fact, it was so delayed, for, although a committee was appointed, it had made no report when parliament was prorogued and subsequently dissolved.

THE AFFAIRS OF THE WEST INDIES.

In the latter part of 1831, a violent hurricane had occasioned a great deal of injury in Barbadoes, St. Vincent, and St. Lucia. During this session ministers proposed, and parliament agreed, to grant his majesty £100,000 for the relief of the sufferers in those islands. Jamaica was soon after visited by a calamity of a different kind, though not less destructive. About the end of 1831, a formidable insurrection, which had been organised for some time, broke out among the slaves, particularly in the parishes of Trelawney, Portland, and St. James. The negroes on several estates began at first to refuse to go to their work, and then they assembled together in large bodies, and marched over the country, spreading devastation around them. The destruction which they caused was not confined to the whites; the houses and small settlements of free people of colour were attacked equally with the large plantations of the white inhabitants. It was found necessary on the 20th of December to proclaim martial law, and the militia of the different parishes was called out. Sir Willoughby Cotton also marched to Montego Bay, with between two and three hundred troops. Two engagements took place between the negroes and the militia, in both of which the former were routed. They again made head in some quarters; but at length the troops succeeded in dispersing them; and offers of pardon being issued to all but the ringleaders, the greater part of them returned to their masters. Of the ringleaders, some were shot after trial by courts-martial; and by the middle of January the danger was over, though some of the negroes still remained out, and martial law was not recalled. The insurrection was ascribed by the whites partly to the vague notions existing among the negroes by the orders in council intended to effect the amelioration of their condition, and partly to the arts or imprudence of sectarian missionaries. A belief had been produced among the former that their liberty had been granted by the king; and it was said that they had been encouraged in these ideas by some of the missionaries. This unfortunately gave rise to the work of retaliation. At Montego Bay. Falmouth, Lucia, and Savanna-la-Mer, the chapels of the Baptists were razed to the ground by the mob, probably at the instigation of the planters. A Baptist and Moravian missionary were arrested on the charge of exciting the insurrection, but nothing was found to criminate them. But apart from the effect which the orders in council might have had in misleading the negroes, they were regarded by the colonists as an unnecessary and mischievous interference with the rights of property, and even with their political privileges. The orders appointed slave-protectors to attend to the rights of negroes against their own masters, fixed the hours of labour, and contained various other regulations, all deemed useful, and intended to prepare the way for a general emancipation. These orders were considered in both sets of islands as dangerous incitements to turbulence among the negroes, and ruinous to the property of planters. There were discontent and irritation everywhere against the government at home; and in the colonies which had legislative assemblies it was plainly spoken out by resolutions and petitions. Nor were the proprietors at home silent on the occasion. On the 6th of April the West-India mercantile body of London presented a protest against the order in council to the secretary of state. This was followed by a public meeting of persons interested in the colonies, where it was resolved to petition the house of lords, praying, “That a full and impartial parliamentary inquiry should be instituted for the purposes of ascertaining the laws and usages of the colonies, the condition of the slaves, the improvements that had been made in that condition, and what further steps could be taken for the amelioration of that condition consistently with the best interests of the slaves themselves, and with the rights of private property.” This petition was presented on the 17th of April, by the Earl of Harewood, and the prayer of their petition was granted. Mr. Buxton, on the 24th of May, made a motion on the other side of the question. He moved: “That a select committee be appointed to consider and report upon the measures expedient to be adopted for properly effecting the extinction of slavery throughout the British dominions at the earliest period compatible with the safety of all classes.” Lord Althorp objected to this motion as too unqualified, and he wished Mr. Buxton to add the words, “in conformity with the resolutions of 15th of May, 1823.” To this Mr. Buxton would not consent, and Lord Althorp then moved them as an amendment on the motion, and they were carried by a large majority. These measures were subsequently followed by pecuniary relief to those who had lost property. The sum of £100,000, which had been granted to the sufferers from the hurricane in Barbadoes, St. Vincent, and St. Lucia, was raised to £1,000.000, and extended to the sufferers in Jamaica by the insurrection. In addition to this, the sum of £58,000 was granted to be applied in giving aid in regard to the internal expenses to the crown colonies, which had adopted the orders in council, and had carried the same into effect.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by his majesty in person on the 16th of August. On the great question of the session his majesty remarked:—“The matters which you have had under consideration have been of the first importance; and the laws in particular which have been passed for the reforming the representation of the people have occupied, as was unavoidable, the greatest portion of your time and attention. In recommending this subject to your consideration, it was my object, by removing the just causes of complaint, to restore general confidence in the legislature, and to give additional security to the settled institutions of the state. This object will, I trust, be found to have been accomplished.” Ireland was still in a disturbed state, on which his majesty remarked:—“I have still to lament the continuance of disturbances in Ireland, notwithstanding the vigilance and energy displayed by my government there, in the measures which it has taken to repress them. The laws which have been passed in conformity with my recommendation at the beginning of the session, with respect to the collection of tithes, are well calculated to lay the foundation of a new system, to the completion of which the attention of parliament, when it again assembles, will of course be directed. To this necessary work my best assistance will be given, by enforcing the execution of the laws, and by promoting the prosperity of a country blessed by Divine Providence with so many natural advantages. As conducive to this subject, I must express the satisfaction which I have felt at the measures adopted for extending generally to my people in that kingdom the benefits of education.” At the close of his majesty’s speech the lord-chancellor said, that it was his majesty’s royal will and pleasure that parliament be prorogued to Tuesday the 16th of October next, to be then holden, and this parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday the 16th day of October next.

GENERAL ELECTION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

After parliament was prorogued, the great objects of public attention were the registration of the new constituency under the reform bill, and other preparations for a general election, which was to follow as soon as the registration was completed. The registration, which was conducted very quietly, having been completed, parliament, which had been prorogued by commission on the 16th of October, was dissolved on the 3rd of December, and the first general election under the reform act took place. The writs were made returnable on the 29th of January, 1833. As regards the machinery of the act, it appeared to work more smoothly than had been anticipated. Generally speaking, in the most populous places, the polling was concluded within the two days allowed by the act. Less time and opportunity were allowed for bribery, and the disturbances which used to arise from drunkenness and profligacy in a great measure ceased. As regards the candidates which the machinery of the act produced, there was a great dislocation of old connexions and previous interests. There were three parties in the field: ministerial candidates; Tories, now called Conservatives; and the Radicals, who have been aptly termed “the apostles of pledges.” The elections were generally in favour of the ministerial candidates, or at least of candidates who professed the same general views, and declared their adherence to a reforming ministry. This was natural, for in almost all the boroughs success depended on the newly created electors, who could scarcely refuse their votes to that party by whose means they had procured the right of voting. The Whigs were most successful in Scotland: out of fifty-three representatives elected in that portion of the empire, not more than twelve were Conservatives; nor could half that number be termed “apostles of pledges.” In Ireland, however, the Whigs were not so successful. O’Connell had denounced the ministers, even while the reform bill was in progress, as acting with insult and injustice towards Ireland in the measure of change meted out to her; and the refusal to abolish the Protestant established church in Ireland had converted him and his adherents into declared enemies. All their energies, therefore, were employed to return members who would either drive ministers from the helm, or drive them to sacrifice the church, and repeal the union. The consequence of his agitation was, that, while Mr. O’Connell was himself elected for Dublin, he brought over with him when parliament met some half-dozen of his own immediate relations, besides various demagogical dependents, as the representatives of Ireland. O’Connell’s manners and language on this occasion were violent in the extreme. In a letter “To the Reformers of Great Britain,” he even ventured to put forth articles of impeachment against the ministers, and he went so far as to offer to coalesce with the Orangemen in order to defeat them. The result of his agitation was that, by his exertions and influence, coupled with that of the minor demagogues of Ireland, the number of Radicals, or “Repealers” was greatly increased.

RESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER.

As the end of last session was approaching, Mr. Manners Sutton, who had filled the speaker’s chair in six successive parliaments, announced his intended resignation. His chief reason appears to have been that the next parliament would consist of many new faces; and would be differently constituted to those in which he had presided. All parties, however, received his announcement with regret; and Lord Althorp moved, Mr. Goulburn seconded, and the house voted by acclamation the usual resolution of thanks in such cases. An address was also voted to the king, praying his majesty to confer some signal mark of his favour on the speaker; and this was carried into effect by granting to Mr. Sutton £4000 a-year, to be reduced one-half if he accepted office under the crown of equal value, and £3000 a-year to his son on his demise.

STATE OF IRELAND.

This year witnessed the disaffection of all parties in Ireland. Towards the conclusion of the preceding year a systematic opposition to tithes had been organised, and the repeal of the union had been openly advocated. Ministers, doubtless, conceived that the reform bill would conciliate both the agitators and their followers; but in this they were mistaken. The reform bill, indeed, gave rise to new sources of discontent. The Protestants lost all confidence therefrom in the government; and they very naturally felt inclined to have recourse, for means of defence, to the same instruments which the Catholics used against them. They were surrounded by Catholic bands, inclined to pillage and murder, and it was no wonder that they felt irritated by a measure which appeared to give licence to the lawless. A meeting of Protestant noblemen and gentlemen, held in Dublin, put forth a manifesto, enumerating the various grievances of which they thought themselves entitled to complain, and calling upon all their brethren to be vigilant and true to their own interests. The example of this assembly was followed in many parts of the country, and addresses were voted by numerous meetings to the king. In one of these addresses dissatisfaction and alarm was expressed at the spirit that appeared to influence the councils and direct the measures of the Irish government. Unconstitutional and mischievous associations, it was stated, had been suffered to be formed and continued, the efforts of which were directed to usurp the power of government, and destroy the civil and religious institutions of the country; and these associations, instead of being suppressed, were allowed to take place even in the metropolis, while the instigators of them were rewarded with favour and confidence. This address also expressed strong opinions on the reform bill. It would transfer, it was said, to the Catholics and Catholic clergy an overwhelming influence in the representation; that the boroughs, whose franchise was to be taken from the Protestant corporations and transferred to a larger constituency, had been incorporated for the express purpose of maintaining, by a Protestant constituency, the connexion between the two countries; and that the measure in progress could have no other effect than to vest the dominion of Ireland in the Catholics. On the other hand, the reform bill did not give satisfaction to the Catholics; it gave much, but it did not give all that they desired, or all that was necessary to the completion of their schemes. Their object was ascendancy. Popery could not retain its glories in Ireland, or the Protestant church be destroyed, so long as their fate depended on a Protestant parliament. The union must be repealed; and unless Ireland sent into the house of commons a large body of Catholic repealers, there was no chance of such a consummation. Hence it was that Mr. O’Connell attacked the Irish bill with such bitterness; it did not make a larger addition to the representatives of Ireland, and it did not sink the qualification to a scale sufficiently low to ensure the return of all repealers to the reformed parliament. These “defects of the bill,” therefore, supplied the demagogues with new sources of agitation. The people were told that this pretended reform was an insult; that they had received only a small portion of the justice that was due to them; and that they must still offer unyielding opposition to a government which granted only a part of their demands.

Meanwhile the tithe question became & fruitful source of discontent and bloodshed. A petition was entrusted to Mr. O’Connell to the house of commons against the Protestant church, which, while it announced in plain language their own wishes, gave direct encouragement to violence and outrage. The different counties, in fact, from the agitation of the demagogues, presented one scene of growing lawlessness and crime. The king’s speech was even made to foster this spirit of insubordination. It had recommended the consideration of the tithe question in parliament; and the Irish Catholics construed this into a condemnation of the tax. Looking upon the tithes, therefore, as already denounced by the king and the parliament, they thought they were justified in resisting the payment of them. Everyman refused to pay; and threats, arson, and murder, were directed against all who in any way connected themselves with the payment, or collection of tithes, whether as clergyman, proctor, policeman, or payer. Recourse was even had to intimidation by public proclamation; chapel doors were desecrated by placards threatening death and destruction to all who should pay tithes. Thus instructed at the very sanctuary where peace alone should have been taught, the ignorant and misguided peasantry everywhere committed acts of violence and outrage. The premises of the tithe-payer were reduced to ashes, and his cattle were houghed, or scattered over the country, or, as in Carlow, hunted over precipices. Moreover, scarcely a week elapsed in which a proctor, or a process-server, or a constable, or a tithe-payer, were not murdered. An archdeacon of Cashel was even murdered in broad daylight, while several persons who were ploughing in the field where the act was committed, either would not, or dared not interfere. Neither life nor property were safe; and in the beginning of February the Irish government found it necessary to have recourse to the peace-preservation act, and to proclaim certain baronies in the county of Tipperary to be in a state of disturbance. This, however, had no effect; large bodies of men everywhere openly defied the law, and roamed about the county, compelling landlords to sign obligations to reduce their rents, and to pay no tithes. They even compelled some farmers to give up their farms and their houses, and, in some instances, they committed the most atrocious cruelties. An end was put not only to the payment of tithe, but to the payment of rent; and the terror which prevailed on every hand acted as a shield to the offenders. In fact, it was considered a crime to be connected with any attempt to execute the law against the insurgents, and to betray any activity in preserving order was to become a marked man; such a man was sure of being made the victim of open violence, or secret assassination. Such an extensive combination had been entered into to resist the payment of tithes, and to protect all who might be implicated, that the ends of justice could not be attained. Jurors were in danger of losing property and life; and at Kilkenny the attorney-general even found it necessary to delay the trials.

Government, as the year advanced, filled the disturbed districts with troops and an augmented constabulary force; but no approach was made to the restoration of order. The magistrates of the county of Kilkenny made an unanimous application to the Irish government for stronger measures to meet the crisis; but the lord-lieutenant stated in his answer, that, from circumstances which had taken place, he had no expectation left of any appeal to the law under the existing excitement proving effectual. He sent, indeed, into that county three additional stipendiary magistrates, and one hundred additional policemen; but this was ineffectual: crime still prevailed, and resistance was successfully made to the payment of tithes. In the meantime, the agitators and their political unions, while they affected to deplore the perpetration of the outrages which were every day occurring, did not cease to address to their countrymen the same exciting language in which they had hitherto indulged, and to devise new schemes and combinations for open resistance to the law. It was quite evident, indeed, that they were at the bottom of all the mischief that was afloat. It is true, they did not recommend openly murder and arson, and that they preached passive resistance; but they called upon every man to refuse payment of tithes, and in that call was involved disobedience to the laws. Dublin was the seat of most of the mischief going forward. From thence the agitators continued to describe Ireland to its inhabitants as the slave of England, and to denounce the existence of tithe. The remedy of the tithe-owner was distraint; but in a few instances only could a sale be carried into effect, and the clergy were at length compelled to give up all attempts to enforce their rights, the more especially as the arrears, if the measures proposed by ministers were carried, would become debts due to government. Where-ever a sale was effected, all those connected with it were objects of vengeance. Thus, in Kildare, a farmer who had purchased some distrained cattle, was obliged to throw up his farm and leave the country. The opposition against the payment of tithe was directed against the government as well as the clergy. Its intention was to drive ministers, if possible, to recommend and enforce their abolition, by rendering the recovery of them impracticable. Anti-tithe meetings were held in every part of Ireland, and the greater part of the country was involved in one huge conspiracy. During the year government seemed to think it time to try whether the law could not reach the tumultuous assemblies of the conspirators. A circular was addressed to the Irish magistracy, directing them to disperse all meetings collected in such numbers as to produce alarm and endanger peace, as distinguished by banners, inscriptions, or emblems, which tended to disturbance, or to throw contumely on the law. This circular was denounced by Mr. O’Connell as illegal, though he advised that it should be obeyed. Several large meetings were dispersed by the military, headed by a magistrate; but where the meeting was strictly parochial, no opposition was offered to their proceedings. It was this spirit of lawlessness which gave rise to the Irish tithe-bill of this session. The passing of that bill neither mitigated the discord which everywhere prevailed, nor diminished the crimes which that discord produced. The people had been taught to demand as their right, and to expect as a concession, the annihilation of tithe; but they found that the crown, by the Irish tithe-bill, had become creditor instead of the clergymen. They had now, therefore, to struggle with the crown. Proceedings were adopted by the law-officers of government to enforce payment of arrears, and at the same time it was resolved to try the power of the law against the ringleaders of the “anti-tithe meetings.” A great number of persons were apprehended on the charge of conspiracy, and of holding illegal assemblies. Some of these on their trials were convicted, and others, on the advice of O’Connell, pleaded guilty, and they were fined and imprisoned; but they were looked upon as martyrs, and the penalties which they were suffering were noted down as another unpardonable injury committed against Ireland by the English government and the Protestant church. The law, however, was not equally successful when directed against the more atrocious crimes of arson and murder, which had been committed in the southern counties. Life was not safe in those parts, and jurors and witnesses alike dreaded the execution of a duty which might involve a sentence of death upon themselves. Rather than attend, they paid the fine for absence; or if they attended, they were afraid to convict, even in the most atrocious cases. The law-officers were, in fact, compelled to give up the prosecutions in despair, and murder remained unavenged. In celebration of this triumph over law and justice, the county of Kilkenny blazed with bonfires, announcing to the world that the guilty had escaped punishment. As for the “acquitting jurors,” they were greeted with the popular applause; and because they allowed murder to be committed with impunity, the peasantry hastened in crowds to their fields in harvest-time, and reaped their fields for nothing. Crime, therefore, prospered; and the tale of murder was repeatedly told in the newspapers of the day, while the perpetrators thereof escaped the punishment due to their crimes. Yet no lament was raised by the political guides of Ireland over murdered landholders and clergymen; it appeared to be, in their sight, a just revenge. At the same time a long wail of woe was heard throughout the country, if it happened that any of the resisting peasantry were killed by the military in the performance of their duties in securing the tithe. Four were thus killed in the county of Cork, and others wounded, the military being compelled to fire in self-defence; and Mr. O ‘Connell immediately sent forth a letter to the reformers of Great Britain, invoking vengeance. And yet this man, who could deplore the fate of violators of the laws, could not find any cause for lament in the deaths of the many clergymen and laymen who had been slain by the infuriated peasantry. He could not find it in his heart to deplore the fact that the blood of peaceful, respectable, and virtuous citizens, had been shed on Irish ground; but he could palliate the conduct of their murderers, and by his agitation virtually sanction the foul crime.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During this year Don Pedro carried his threat into execution, of attempting to recover the throne of Portugal from his brother by force of arms. He had been permitted to levy men, and to purchase vessels and shipments of arms and ammunition, both in England and France, and the naval part of the expedition was placed under the command of a British officer, who became a Portuguese admiral. The expedition sailed from the rendezvous, in the Azores, on the 27th of June, and it consisted of two frigates, three corvettes, three armed brigs, and four schooners, besides transports, and a number of gun-boats to cover the landing. The army on board, including British and French recruits, did not amount to ten thousand men, and it was scantily provided, both with cavalry and artillery. The invaders landed off Oporto on the 9th of July, without any opposition; and in the course of the day they took undisturbed possession of the city, the enemy having retired to the left bank of the Douro, and destroyed the bridge. The possession of this city was doubtless of great importance to Don Pedro; but it was far removed from the capital. He had hopes that the country would rise in his favour, and that the military would abandon his opponent. In these expectations, however, he was doomed to be disappointed. Don Miguel was enabled to concentrate his forces, and to organise the means of resistance; and at the close of the year, after some slight successes in engagements with the enemy, he was shut up in Oporto by the Miguelites, who bombarded the town, blockaded the Douro, and placed him in a very critical situation.

In the East a quarrel took place between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali, Pasha of Egypt, which threatened serious consequences to the Turkish empire, and occasioned such interference on the part of Russia as awakened the jealousy, and aroused the watchfulness of the other European powers. Ibrahim wrested Syria from the Porte, and the Ottoman empire was tottering to its fall, unless the European states should interfere to prevent it, or Russia should realize her long-cherished schemes of aggrandizement by taking the shores of the Bosphorus, which the Sultan was not able to defend, under her own protection. It was feared by the European powers that Russia would thus act; and toward the end of June, ministers dispatched the son-in-law of the premier on a special mission to Russia. Much confidence was placed by the public in the integrity and talents of Lord Durham, and an attempt was made to induce the ministers to embrace this opportunity of mitigating the cruel fate which hung over the unhappy Poles. Poland, however, was still doomed to be unbefriended. Russia was left to seek the annihilation of its existence as a separate nation at her pleasure. By an ukase this year, indeed, the emperor declared that Poland, with a separate administration, should become an integral part of the empire, “and its inhabitants form but one nation with the Russians, bound together by uniform and national sentiments.” During this session, also, there was a debate on the subject of payments made to Russia without the authority of parliament. This question was connected with the financial affairs of the country, though it was treated more as a question of political party. It arose out of the treaty of 1814 for the incorporation of the Belgian provinces with Holland. By that treaty Great Britain had agreed to pay a certain share of a debt due to Russia by Holland, so long as Holland and Belgium were united. They had now been disjoined for nearly a year, and yet ministers had been making these payments without any new authority from parliament. The subject was brought forward by Mr. Herries, who entered at length on the subject, and contended that England had no right any longer to pay money to Russia: the Dutch had refused to pay any more, and ministers should not have done so without at least new powers from parliament. He moved three resolutions:—“That by the 55 Geo. III., for carrying into effect the convention between Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Russia, the treasury was empowered to issue sums to pay the interest and capital due by Holland to Russia, conformably with the provisions of the convention: That the payment of these sums was made to depend upon the non-separation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium; and that, as the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland had been separated, all payments made since that separation were unwarranted by act of parliament, and contrary to the treaty recognising the loan.” Lord Althorp, in reply, said that the true question was, whether the country was not bound in honour to the continued payment of those sums. Looking at it only according to the strict letter of the treaty, we might not be bound; but he thought that by a careful examination of its spirit and provisions, it would be found that our honour was pledged to the payments, and that on no other consideration than that it was so pledged should we have interfered as we had done in the affairs of Holland and Belgium. He argued that the separation contemplated by the framers of the treaty was one produced by extreme force, and had nothing to say to any severance proceeding from internal causes. He argued further, that it was by giving Russia an interest in preventing the severance of Holland and Belgium, that this country concluded the treaty; and that, therefore, to that treaty we were equally pledged. That Holland had refused to pay was immaterial: if one pledged himself to the payment of a debt to which there was also a third party, it would be dishonourable to take advantage of that third party having refused to fulfil his engagement, as a legal reason for also refusing to fulfil your engagement. With respect to the resolutions, he had only to say, that, as the two first were merely declaratory of the fact, he should, as far as they were concerned, move the previous question; but as the third was a direct censure on ministers, he should meet it with a direct negative. Ministers had acted on the opinion of the attorney and solicitor-general, and they now defended that opinion. Lord John Russell also argued that it was the spirit and not the letter of the treaty which must be looked at, and that that spirit justified the payment. He complained that the resolutions were moved with a mere party view, and not from any love of economy or from any desire to maintain a constitutional principle. He complained also, that a motion should be made for censuring ministers, without calling for papers, and without any allusion to the circumstances which had occurred in 1830 and 1831, and on which the interpretation of the treaty might in a great degree depend. After some stinging comments upon this speech, Sir Robert Peel wound up the debate in one of his most plausible parliamentary addresses. He clearly confuted the main arguments which Lord Althorp used, and produced an effect unfavourable to ministers. When the house divided, the previous question was carried by a majority only of twenty; and government had but the narrow majority of twenty-four for the third resolution. Many of their adherents, including Mr. Hume, voted against them on this occasion; and even their secretary-at-war, Sir Henry Parnell, failed to attend to vote for them, for which conduct he lost his place, and was succeeded by Sir John Cam Hobhouse. The truth was, as it afterwards appeared, ministers had entered into a new convention with Russia, although that convention had not been ratified. Ministers laid this before parliament on the 27th of June; and on the 12th of July Lord Althorp moved the house to go into committee to consider of it, with the view that a bill should be brought in to enable his majesty to execute it. The convention provided for continuing the payments, and the opposition thought this a powerful argument in their favour; if a new convention was necessary, it was said, the former payments were made without authority. They moved the following amendment to Lord Alfhorp’s motion:—“That it appears to this house that the payment made by the commissioners of the treasury on account of the interest due on the Russian loan in Holland, in January last, when the obligation and authority to make such payment had, according to the terms of the convention with Holland and Russia, and of the act of parliament founded thereon, ceased and determined, and also when a new convention with Russia, not then communicated to this house, had been entered into, recognising the necessity of recurring to parliament for power to continue such payments under the circumstances which had attended the separation which had taken place, was an application of the public money not warranted by law.” Ministers still argued the question on the ground, whether this country was bound in good faith to continue the payments? if we were, they said, this convention was only to fulfil that duty. But the strongest argument in their favour was that adduced by Lord Althorp, which was to the effect, that, if his motion were lost, it would upset the ministry. As the reform bill was still pending, many voted for, who would have voted against them; and, on a division, the amendment was lost by forty-six—one hundred and ninety-seven voting for it, and two hundred and forty-three against it. During the progress of the bill, founded on the motion, Mr. A. Baring moved an address to the king, “praying his majesty to be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before that house copies or extracts of any documents relating to the convention of the 19th of May, 1815, between Great Britain, Russia, and the Netherlands, explanatory of the spirit and objects of that convention;” but this motion was lost by a majority of thirty-six in favour of ministers. On this occasion Mr. Hume voted for them, although, he said, he knew they were in the wrong. He had come down to the house on the 12th of July, he said, with a firm determination to vote against them; but when he found by whom he was surrounded, he was unwilling to join them in driving ministers from office. He had changed his opinion, and would vote with the Whigs against the Tories, although he believed the Whigs were in the wrong. But the fact was, he was determined not to assist in turning out ministers until they had completed the great measure of reform. A great deal remained to be done, and he wanted to see a new election take place; he was determined, therefore, to support ministers. The conduct of Mr. Hume was followed generally by the liberal party, and this policy of the extreme sections of liberals alone preserved ministers in office. Another interesting subject was brought before the house by Mr. Lytton Bulwer, relating to the Germanic states. He moved for “an address to the king, requesting his majesty to exert his influence with the diet in opposition to the course which that body was then pursuing.” In making this motion, Mr. Bulwer traced an outline of the political history of the Germanic confederacy, from its free government to its termination with the victories of Austerlitz and Jena, when the principle of aggrandizing the larger states at the expense of the smaller was first avowed and practised. He said that the defeat of Napoleon in his Russian campaign gave to Germany the opportunity of casting off a yoke which had been reluctantly borne. Russia and Prussia then appealed to her former free constitutions, the restoration of which was distinctly promised, when the Germanic states rose _en masse_; and the battle of Leipsic, with the downfall of the French power, speedily followed. By the second article of the congress of Vienna, he continued, the promises of Russia and Prussia were respected, and the rights of every class in the nation were solemnly guaranteed, the only state disagreeing being Wurtemburg. The late protocol of the diet, however, had for its object the rendering of the representative bodies of the several states useless, by relieving their despotic princes from every embarrassment which an efficient control by such assemblies might create, and to protect Austria and Prussia against the influential example of popular institutions. The sovereigns of these two states, he said, are willing to give just so much constitutional liberty to Germany as will not allow its writers to write, its professors to teach, its chambers to vote taxes, make speeches, or propose resolutions; whilst every state should be so inviolate, so independent, that, with or without the invitation of its sovereign, a deputation of Austrian or Prussian hussars may be sent to keep it in order! The question was, therefore, was it politic for England, under such circumstances, to interfere? Our situation, he said, rendered it incumbent on us to express an opinion, at least, in favour of the German people, or we must be thought to take part with their rulers. He could not recommend a foolish and hasty interference with foreign states, yet he could not consent that England should be a cipher in the political combinations of Europe, looking with indifference on the continent, as though no changes could affect her interests. And if there was any one thing more than another which immediately affected British interests, he thought it was the fate of Germany. Unite that country under a good government, and it would be at once a check on the aggrandisement of France and ambition of Russia. Mr. Bulwer concluded with his motion for the address; but Lord Palmerston dissented from his opinions, and was willing to believe that the government alluded to would not be so impolitic as to put down free constitutions. The motion was therefore negatived.

During this year Greece was involved in absolute anarchy. After the assassination of Capo d’Istrias it was left without a government, and although Augustine, brother of the murdered president, concocted a provisional government, and placed himself at the head, the refractory chiefs could not brook his authority, and began to act for themselves. A national assembly met at Argos in the middle of December, 1831; but it was not more successful in restoring obedience and tranquillity. Everywhere there was confusion and bloodshed, as in the days of the ancients. The national assembly of Argos was overthrown, and every chief ruled despotic in the small district which he was strong enough to occupy. In the meantime the courts of Britain, France, and Russia were occupied in selecting a king who might reduce the country to order more easily and effectually than they could do by protocols and despatches. Their choice fell on Otho, son of the King of Bavaria; and his majesty having accepted the crown on behalf of his son, the conditions were fixed by a treaty, concluded in May, between him and the sovereigns of England, France, and Russia. The territory to be comprehended in the new state was to be somewhat larger than when its sovereignty had been offered to Leopold; and the King of Bavaria was to send along with his son an army of 36,000 men, to be supported entirely at the expense of the country. It might have been expected that the Greeks would have been averse to the rule of a foreign monarch, attended by foreign troops, and professing a different religion to themselves. The assembly of Napoli, however, as soon as they had been informed of the conclusion of the treaty, dispatched an address to the King of Bavaria, praying him to hasten the arrival of their monarch. The address was followed by a deputation, which was received at Munich with marks of royal favour, and which had been commissioned to assure their future sovereign of their good will and ready submission to his rule. The young monarch quitted Munich for Greece on the 6th of December, proceeding by the way of Naples, Otranto, and Brindisi, to Corfu, where he was to be met by the army intended to support his newly-erected throne. He made his entrance into Napoli on the 5th of February, 1833; and the regency appointed for the duration of his minority—for he was a minor—replaced the provisional government.