Chapter 53

{VICTORIA. 1837—1838}

The Accession of Queen Victoria..... The Queen’s Message to both Houses: Eulogies of the late Sovereign in both Houses of Parliament..... Bill for providing the Succession to the Crown..... The Budget, &c. Alterations in the Criminal Law, &c. Prorogation of Parliament..... State of Parties and Elections..... City Banquet to the Queen..... Opening of the New Parliament..... The Subject of the Civil List debated..... The Subject of the Pension List..... Intelligence from Canada: Discussion on the Subject..... Adjournment of the House..... State of the Continent

THE ACCESSION OF QUEEN VICTORIA.

{A.D. 1837}

On the arrival of the news in town of the death of King William, orders were immediately issued for summoning a privy-council, which was assembled before noon on Tuesday, at the palace of Kensington. At this council directions were given for proclaiming Queen Victoria, and the act of allegiance was signed by all present, the first name on the list being that of “Ernest, King of Hanover.” When the ceremony of signing the act of allegiance had been performed, the queen made the following declaration to the country:—“The severe and afflicting loss which the nation has sustained by the death of his majesty, my beloved uncle, has devolved upon me the duty of administering the government of this empire. This awful responsibility is imposed upon me so suddenly, and at so early a period of my life, that I should feel myself utterly oppressed by the burden, were I not sustained by the hope that Divine Providence, which has called me to this work, will give me strength for the performance of it: and that I shall find in the purity of my intentions, and in my zeal for the public welfare, that support and those resources which usually belong to a more mature age, and to long experience. I place my firm reliance on the wisdom of parliament, and upon the loyalty and affection of my people. I esteem it also a peculiar advantage, that I succeed to a sovereign whose constant regards for the rights and liberties of his subjects, and whose desire to promote the amelioration of the laws and institutions of the country, have rendered his name the object of general attachment and veneration. Educated in England, under the tender and enlightened care of a most affectionate mother, I have learned from my infancy to respect and love the constitution of my native country. It will be my unceasing study to maintain the reformed religion as by law established, securing at the same time to all the full enjoyment of religious liberty. And I shall steadily protect the rights, and promote to the utmost of my power the happiness and welfare of all classes of my subjects.” On this occasion her majesty is described as displaying extraordinary self-possession: the dignified composure and firmness of voice with which she pronounced the above declaration were indeed a theme of admiration with those who were present at the scene. Thus commenced the reign of Queen Victoria over the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland.

One effect of the descent of the crown to a female was the separation from it of Hanover, after an union which had lasted for nearly a century and a quarter. This abscission of territory, however, was scarcely noticed; it hardly called forth an observation in the newspapers, much less an expression of regret—a proof of the little value attached in this country to foreign dominion as a source of wealth or strength.

THE QUEEN’S MESSAGE TO BOTH HOUSES—EULOGIES OF THE LATE SOVEREIGN IN BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

On the news of the death of the king both houses of parliament were immediately summoned to meet. On that and the following day, however, the administration of the oath of allegiance to the members, formed the only business transacted. On Thursday, the 22nd, Lord Melbourne brought the following message from the queen to the house of lords:—“Victoria Regina. The queen entertains the fullest confidence that the house of lords will participate in the deep affliction which her majesty feels in the death of the late king, whose constant desire to promote the interests, to maintain the liberties, and to improve the laws and institutions of the country, must ensure for his name and memory the dutiful and affectionate respect of all her majesty’s subjects. The present state of public business, and the period of the session, when considered in connection with the law which imposes on her majesty the duty of summoning a new parliament within a limited time, renders it inexpedient in the judgment of her majesty, that any new measures should be recommended for your adoption, with the exception of such as may be requisite for carrying on the public service from the close of the present session to the meeting of the new parliament.” Upon this occasion the leaders of all parties in parliament expressed their strong sense of the sterling and amiable qualities of the departed monarch. Lord Melbourne lamented the loss of a most gracious master, and said that the world had lost a man of the best intentions, the most uncompromising honour, and the strictest integrity. After adverting to the naval education of the late king, to the part which he had occasionally taken in the debates of that house, Lord Melbourne moved an address of condolence to her majesty upon the death of the late king, and of congratulation upon her accession to the throne. This was carried unanimously. Another proposition also was carried with unanimity, to the effect that an address of condolence be sent to her majesty the queen dowager, assuring her majesty of the sympathy which the house entertained for her loss. Lord John Russell brought the same message to the commons, moving a similar address in reply.

BILL FOR PROVIDING THE SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN.

A bill for providing for the contingency of another demise of the crown was brought into the upper house by the lord chancellor on the 3rd of July. Its object was to make provision for the carrying on of the executive government, in such an event, during the possible absence of the heir presumptive from the country. The bill provided that certain great officers of state, namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the lord-chancellor, the lord-treasurer, the president of the council, the lord privy seal, the lord high admiral, and the chief-justice of the Queen’s Bench at the time being respectively, should act as lords-justices, to exercise all the powers and authorities of the successor of the crown, as a king would exercise them at present, until his arrival in the kingdom, or until he should otherwise order. The bill also provided that the heir presumptive to the throne might at any time deposit a list—which list was revocable at pleasure—of such persons as he might appoint to act with such justices, and to be considered as part of them; and the persons named in that list were to exercise, in common with the lords already named, the functions of royalty, until the successor to the throne should otherwise determine. By another provision in the bill, however, the powers of the lords-justices were restricted to those only which were necessary to carry on the government of the country. They were not to have the power of dissolving parliament; nor of creating peers; nor of giving the royal assent to any bill altering the succession to the throne; or for changing the established religion of England, Scotland, or Ireland. The bill passed almost unanimously through both houses of parliament, Lord Brougham only urging an objection against the omission of any portion of the royal family in the lists of lords-justices named in the bill. His lordship even made this omission the subject of a protest entered in the journals of the house. His lordship began at this time to display an obstructive disposition towards the government with which he had so long acted. He had proved that his exaltation to the office of lord-chancellor had inflated his vanity, and made him so self-willed and crotchetty as to render co-operation with him either in the government of the country, or in conducting bills through the legislature, next to impossible.

THE BUDGET, ETC.

On the 30th of June the chancellor of the exchequer made his yearly financial statement. After adverting to the embarrassments which had beset the commerce of the country since the close of the preceding session, he proceeded to state the actual income and expenditure of the country, as compared with the estimate he had formed of its probable amount in the course of the last session. He had calculated, he said, that the customs would produce £20,540,000; the actual receipt was £21,445,000; the excise he had taken at £14,150,000; the actual income was, £14,439,000: the stamps he had calculated at £7,000,000; the receipts were £7,100,000: the assessed taxes he estimated at £3,575,000; they produced £3,681,000: the post-office revenue he had reckoned at £1,450,000; it amounted to £1,618,000. On the whole the income, which on the data then before him he had calculated at £46,980,000, produced £48,453,000. Mr. Rice then proceeded to state the expenditure, with reference to which he had fortunately, he said, rather under than over-estimated the probable income for the present year, as otherwise government would have become embarrassed. He had taken the interest on the funded debt at £28,528,000; the actual payment was £28,537,000: other charges upon the consolidated fund, exclusive of the West India slave-compensation, he took at £2,092,000; the actual charge was £2,183,000. With respect to the army, navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous estimates of the year, he had taken them at £14,585, but that estimate was taken before all the supplies of the year were voted: the sum actually required was £14,652,000. The estimated expenditure for the whole year, exclusive of the West India slave-compensation fund, was £45,205,000; the actual expenditure was £45,372,000. With respect to the West India loan, Mr. Rice said that he had reckoned we might be called upon to pay annually a sum of £1,111,000; but the call had on that score amounted to £1,448,342. The chancellor of the exchequer next proceeded to make several statements illustrative of the financial and commercial state of the country. He dwelt especially on the excess of the amount of tea duty in the last year over that received in former years, and observed that it was apparent that without any change of duty, the consumption of that article was increasing. Mr. Rice took the estimates for the year as follows:—the army, navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous, £14,895,000; and the charges upon the consolidated fund, and the interest upon the funded and unfunded debt which it was necessary to provide for the current year, £30,890,000. Thus the total expenditure for the current year was calculated at £45,786,000; but that was exclusive of the West India compensation, the amount of which would be £845,000. With respect to the probable amount of the income, Mr. Rice calculated it might amount in the whole to £47,240,000, which would leave a surplus of £1,454,000. When the interest of the West Indian loan, however, was deducted, the surplus would be diminished to £608,585; and that sum would be reduced by the payment necessary to be made to meet various deficiencies of former years; in fact, all the net surplus upon which they could calculate was £384,673. In conclusion, Mr. Rice made some observations on the increased interest now payable on the unfunded debt of the country, and on the general prospects of the nation. On the latter subject, he observed, that he had before him the means of showing that within the last two or three weeks the elements of improvement had been developing themselves in various parts, and that many of the most depressed branches of trade and manufactures were rapidly reviving. As a natural consequence of this the receipts of the revenue were improving, and the condition of the country was such as to inspire him with confidence. A reduction of taxation, he said, would materially assist that revival. He inferred this from the experiment he had made of lowering the duty on various articles of consumption, especially in the instances of glass and paper. The trade in these articles was now rapidly increasing; but with the present small balance of income on hand, it was impossible for him to propose any speculative reduction of taxation. A conversation followed this statement of the chancellor of the exchequer, and several members proposed various economical nostrums for the benefit of the country, but none of them met with the approbation of the house.

ALTERATIONS IN THE CRIMINAL LAW, ETC.

In 1833, a royal commission had been issued for the purpose of inquiring how far it might be expedient to reduce the written and unwritten law of the country into one digest, and to report on the best manner of doing it. A report was made on this subject in 1834; and while the commissioners were occupied in carrying, in some degree, their own recommendations in respect of it into effect, they were further called upon by government to state their opinions on the subject of the employment of counsel by prisoners, and on the punishment of death. In their second report, which was made in 1836, at great length, this was done, and one result was the bill which was passed in the preceding session, for allowing the assistance of counsel to prisoners in criminal cases. A more important result, however, was the introduction in the present session of a series of bills, having for their object the abolition in many instances of capital punishment. This subject had been brought before the house of commons on the 23rd of March by Lord John Russell, who argued that, if it were thought right that a change should take place in the law of the land on this head, it should be delayed as little as possible. Lord John Russell began by discussing the general doctrines advanced by Paley on the use of severity in criminal punishments, after which he gave some statistical details of capital condemnations in former years. He argued from these details that such a state of things gave a character of great uncertainty to the operation of the law, and rendered it less calculated to inspire that salutary dread in offenders which was the object of criminal punishment. His lordship proceeded to contend that there was no reason to apprehend an increase of crime from the abolition of the punishment of death in certain offences. He instanced the crime of forgery, which, with the exception of the cases of the forgery of powers of attorney and of bills, was now only punishable by transportation. The number of persons committed for this offence in the three years previous to 1833, was one hundred and fifty-five; and in the three following years two hundred and ten. In the first instance only fifty-eight per cent, were convicted; in the latter period the number convicted was seventy-one per cent. From this it appeared that there was no great increase in the number of offences, while the number of convictions was materially increased. The reason of this last effect of the present, criminal law was to be ascribed to the diminished reluctance to prosecute now that the offence was no longer capital. His lordship here stated that in a recent case a man had been tried and convicted of forging a power of attorney. That offence was yet capital; but previously to the case coming before the king in council, the secretary of state received a communication from the bankers of London, expressing their objections to capital punishment: and also another from the governor of the Bank of England, stating, though the Bank directors did not think it their duty to interfere, they had no wish to press for capital punishment. His lordship considered this to be an encouragement to proceed in their course of mitigating the punishment, and particularly for doing away with it in the two reserved cases in forgery. The principle as suggested by the commissioners on which his lordship proposed to proceed was, that capital punishment should be confined to high treason, and, with some exceptions, to offences which consist in or are aggravated by acts of violence to the person, or which tend directly to endanger life. It was proposed that capital offences should be reduced to—1st, high treason; 2nd, murder; 3rd, attempt to murder; 4th, burnings of buildings or ships; 5th, piracy; 6th, burglary; 7th, robbery; 8th, rape. Arson, piracy, burglary, and robbery were to be capital offences only when committed under circumstances or accompanied by acts directly calculated to endanger life. The setting fire to stacks would be no longer a capital offence: the crime, his lordship said, was no doubt a heinous one; but the severity of the punishment had the effect of deterring prosecutions. On the secondary punishments which were to be substituted for capital condemnation, Lord John Russell expressed considerable doubt as to whether the present system of transportation ought to be continued. In theory it seemed desirable to remove an offender to a great distance from the scene of his crime; but the accounts of the practical working of the system were unsatisfactory. The four or five thousand persons annually sent to New South Wales were not absorbed by the population, but continued to form a large and separate vicious mass. Crime and vice were consequently on the increase in the settlement; and the continual importation of fresh cargoes of criminals threatened to aggravate the evils indefinitely. The punishment operated unequally on the convicts; it depended on the humour or temper of the masters whether their situation should be one of indulgence, or one of intolerable hardship. Moreover, there was no merit in the system on the score of economy, it cost the country from £350,000 to £400,000 annually. His lordship proposed, therefore, to abridge the number of cases of transportation, but to aggravate its operation in those which continued subject to it. No person should be transported for less than ten years, it having been found that the effect of a shorter period was to make the criminals insolent and unruly. The next period was to be for fifteen years, and the last for life. A certain hour of labour in the chain gangs was to be allotted to all the prisoners, and indulgences afforded them according to their good conduct. But these were merely suggestions; he did not in the present session intend to bring in any general measure with a view of carrying them into effect.

No opposition was given to the passing of the bills in the commons. They were brought into the upper house by Lord Denman, and the second reading was fixed for the 4th of July. The propositions were moved by Lord Denman, who alleged in their support similar facts and arguments to those urged in the commons by Lord John Russell. Lord Lyndhurst gave his full support to the principle and object of the bills; but he pointed out certain inconsistencies and anomalies of detail, which were subsequently rectified. The measures were likewise warmly advocated by Lord Brougham, who looked with confidence towards a general and effectual mitigation of the criminal code. Among the amendments which were made by the lords was one changing the term of imprisonment from five to three years, limiting the term of solitary confinement to a month at one time, and to not more than three months in a year, and the taking away the capital punishment for offences against the riot act. Thus amended, the bill passed the lords, and the amendments were afterwards agreed to unanimously by the commons.

An important alteration was made in this session, also, in the civil law of the country in respect of the forms to be observed in the execution of wills. This subject was introduced in the house of peers on the 23rd of February, by Lord Langdale, the master of the rolls. His lordship said that the general object of the measure was to collect the provisions of several statutes relating to wills into one act of parliament; and to make at the same time such modifications of these provisions as should afford additional securities for the prevention of spurious wills, and additional facilities for making genuine ones. His lordship proposed to allow the owner of copyholds and customary freeholds to dispose of them by will, which could not now be done. As the law stood, a person could only bequeath such real property as he was possessed of at the time of making his will; but his lordship said he would enable the testator to dispose of any he might acquire subsequently to the execution of the will. At present no person under the age of twenty-one could make a will: his lordship proposed to give the power of disposing of personal property to those who were beyond the age of seventeen. With respect to witnesses the bill would enact that in all cases the execution of the will must be attested by two, whether the property were real or personal. An executor would be admitted to give evidence of the validity of a will, which he could not do at present. Under the existing law it was not necessary that both the witnesses should be present at the same time; but the bill provided that the signature of the testator or his acknowledgment should be made in the presence of two witnesses, who should then attest it themselves. With respect to the revocation of wills, no alteration was proposed in the rule whereby a woman’s will is set aside, by marriage; but it was proposed to alter the rule adopted from the ecclesiastical courts in modern times, whereby a man’s will is considered as revoked by a subsequent marriage and the birth of a child. The bill finally provided for the due construction and effect of certain words. His lordship said that a legislative construction of words had been objected to; but, he argued, that when a rule of construction which plainly violated the lawful intention of testators had been established in the courts of law, there was no way of correcting it but by legislative interposition. The bill was warmly approved of by the leading law authorities in the upper house, and passed almost without discussion. In the commons, also, it met with general approbation; the only opposition came from Sir Robert Inglis, who objected to it chiefly on the ground of the expense which the mode of execution there enjoined would entail on the humbler class of testators. By abolishing holograph wills, and rendering two witnesses necessary, a resort to professional advice would become indispensable. The bill, however, was ably defended by the attorney-general; and it passed into law.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The queen went in state to the house of lords, for the purpose of closing the session, on the 17th of July. On this occasion the speaker delivered an address to her majesty, in which, on behalf of the house of commons, he assured her of their cordial participation in “that strong and universal feeling of dutiful and affectionate attachment which prevailed among the free and loyal people of which they were the representatives, and expressed their trust that this feeling would be strengthened by a long course of constitutional, beneficent, and wise government.” In recording the results of the session, the speaker expressly mentioned the acts for the abolition of capital punishments, &c.; and he expressed a hope that the important measures which had been recommended to parliament, and which had not yet been perfected, might be eventually adopted. The royal assent was then given to a number of public and private bills; after which her majesty thus addressed both houses of parliament:—

“My lords and gentlemen, I have been anxious to seize the first opportunity of meeting you, in order that I might repeat in person my cordial thanks for your condolence upon the death of his late majesty, and for the expression of attachment and affection with which you congratulated me upon my accession to the throne. I am very desirous of renewing the assurances of my determination to maintain the Protestant religion as established by law; to secure to all the free exercise of the rights of conscience; to protect the liberties, and to promote the welfare of all classes of the community. I rejoice that in ascending the throne I find the country in amity with all foreign powers; and while I faithfully perform the engagements of the crown, and carefully watch over the interests of my subjects, it will be the constant object of my solicitude to maintain the blessings of peace.” Her majesty next thanked the house of commons for the liberal supplies which they had granted for the service of the year, as well as for the provision which they had made to meet the usual payments chargeable on the civil list. Addressing both houses again, the queen thanked them for the zeal and assiduity with which they had applied themselves to the public business of the country. Notwithstanding the melancholy interruption that had taken place in their labours, she trusted they would have the beneficial effect of advancing the progress of legislation in the new parliament. Her majesty expressed much pleasure in the mitigation of the severity of the criminal code; she hailed it as an auspicious commencement of her reign. In conclusion, her majesty said—“I ascend the throne with a deep sense of the responsibility which is imposed upon me; but I am supported by the consciousness of my own right intentions, and by my dependence upon the protection of Almighty God. It will be my care to strengthen our institutions, civil and ecclesiastical, by discreet improvement, wherever improvement is required, and to do all in my power to compose and allay animosity and discord. Acting upon these principles, I shall on all occasions look with confidence to the wisdom of parliament and the affections of my people, which form, the true support of the dignity of the crown, and ensure the stability of the constitution.” The age and sex of the youthful sovereign gave a singular and touching interest to this scene, and the manner in which her majesty delivered the speech heightened its effect. It was read in a clear and unfaltering tone, indicating great presence of mind and firmness of character. The appearance and manners of her majesty, indeed, enlisted in her favour all the best feelings of the august assembly she addressed—all wished that her reign might be long and prosperous.

STATE OF PARTIES AND ELECTIONS.

Queen Victoria ascended the throne at a period of perfect tranquillity. The popularity of the ministers was, indeed, declining, and they were surrounded with difficulties, partly from their own mismanagement of affairs, and partly from the position into which their eagerness for power had placed them. On the other hand the spirit of party was subsiding in the country: calm and impartial thinkers began to embrace a wider circle, yet it seemed clear that the administration could not have long existed had the late king lived a few months longer. His majesty had taken them back to his service with reluctance, and he was supposed to be on the watch for the first favourable opportunity of dismissing them. His demise, however, promised an increased stability to their power. Under their new sovereign they looked for a new order of things. She was believed to have been educated by her mother in principles and predilections favourable to their rule, and her countenance and support was expected to give not merely security, but popularity to their government. Nor did they fail to turn the event to good account. When pressed by their democratic allies to introduce organic measures for which they had no predilection themselves, it had been their practice to allege the king’s reluctance to proceed, as a reason for not falling in with their views. When, however, Queen Victoria ascended the throne, they eagerly declared their emancipation from the thraldom of an hostile court, and they proclaimed that the young queen had entered warmly into their views, and had espoused their political creed without reservation. Another considerable resource of popular appeal to the ministerial candidates was the alleged misdeeds of the new King of Hanover. Immediately upon his accession to the throne of that kingdom, his majesty had issued an ordinance, by which the then existing constitution was suspended; and it was thought this conduct of one who was an acknowledged leader of the Tories, might be represented to the disadvantage of that party. These, and other topics, were not without their weight with the multitude. Yet, with their assistance, the ministers had sufficient to do to maintain their previous position. By the end of July the elections for English cities and boroughs were nearly over, and the relative strength of parties was little changed as regarded the Whigs. In the county elections they underwent, indeed, a serious defalcation of strength; besides losing twenty-three seats, they failed in fifteen counties out of sixteen in which they endeavoured to substitute members of their own party for Conservatives. As for the Radicals, public opinion was still less in their favour: even Mr. Hume failed in being returned for Middlesex, and was driven to the necessity of appearing in the house as Mr. O’Connell’s nominee for Kilkenny. The Radicals, it is true, did not suffer numerically; but the absence of many of their leaders from the representation of important towns which they had hitherto represented, was significant of the waning popularity of extreme opinions. The loss, however, which ministers sustained in the English representation, was somewhat compensated by the returns of Scotland and Ireland. But while their numbers were not on the whole diminished, there was an evident falling off in quality. Their friends were not the representatives of such an extensive part of the population as they had been in the last parliament.

CITY BANQUET TO THE QUEEN.

During this autumn the great corporation of the city of London distinguished itself by a striking demonstration of its loyalty to the crown, in a magnificent entertainment which was given to the queen in Guildhall, on the 9th of November. On this occasion the utmost enthusiasm prevailed, and her majesty’s reception, both in her progress to the city and at the banquet, must have been highly gratifying to her feelings. Along the entire route, in going to and returning from the city, she was greeted with enthusiastic cheers, and in the evening a brilliant illumination appeared along the whole line of her passage. Nothing was wanting, indeed, to give the utmost possible splendour to the pageant. The event showed that the “liberal” common-council of the city of London still fostered a substantial respect for loyalty—a circumstance of great political interest.

OPENING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

On the 20th of November the queen went in state to the house of lords to open the new parliament. Having read and signed the usual declaration, her majesty read the speech in a clear and audible voice. The speech expressed satisfaction at the friendly assurances of all foreign powers; regretted that civil war still afflicted the kingdom of Spain; stated that directions had been given for a treaty of commerce, recently concluded with the united republic of Peru and Bolivia, to be laid before parliament; recommended to their serious consideration the state of the province of Lower Canada; and stated that the demise of the crown rendered it necessary that a new provision should be made for the civil list. On this latter subject the queen remarked, that she placed unreservedly at the disposal of the house of commons, those hereditary revenues which were transferred to the public by her immediate predecessor, and that she had commanded such papers as might be necessary for the full examination of the subject to be laid before them. Her majesty’s speech concluded thus:—

“My lords and gentlemen—The external peace and domestic tranquillity which at present happily prevail, are very favourable for the consideration of such measures of reformation and amendment as may be necessary or expedient, and your attention will naturally be directed to that course of legislation which was interrupted by the necessary dissolution of the last parliament. The result of the inquiries which have been made into the condition of the poor in Ireland has been already laid before parliament. And it will be your duty to consult whether it may not be wise and safe to establish by law some well-regulated means of relief for the destitute in that country. The municipal government of the cities and towns in Ireland calls for better regulation. The laws which govern the collection of the tithe-composition in Ireland require revision and amendment. Convinced that the better and more effectual administration of justice is amongst the first duties of a sovereign, I request your attention to those measures which will be submitted to you for the improvement of the law. You cannot but be sensible of the deep importance of these questions which I have submitted to you, and of the necessity of treating them in that spirit of impartiality and justice which affords the best hope of bringing them to a happy and useful termination. In meeting this parliament, the first that has been elected under my authority, I am anxious to declare my confidence in your loyalty and wisdom. The early age at which I am called to the sovereignty of this kingdom renders it a more imperative duty, that, under Divine Providence, I should place my reliance upon your cordial co-operation, and upon the love and affection of my people.”

The address was moved in the house of lords by the Duke of Sussex, who, in the several topics of his speech, avoided every allusion or expression capable of giving offence to any member of the house. His royal highness referred with much satisfaction to the declaration of the Duke of Wellington at the close of the last session, namely, that he would assist in the settlement of the Irish questions, and also to the approbation he had avowed of the new poor-law. His royal highness further expressed his pleasure at the affectionate reception which the queen had met with in her late visit to the city, and adverted to the peculiar interest with which he regarded a sovereign whose birth he had been one of the first to witness. The address was seconded by Lord Portman, and fully assented to by the Duke of Wellington, who said he would follow the example which had been set him of abstaining from every remark that could awaken party feeling. The address was then agreed to, and ordered to be presented with the usual forms.

In the commons the address was moved by Lord Leveson, and seconded by Mr. Craig. A discussion followed, in which Mr. Wakley took the lead. After hearing the speech from the throne, Mr. Wakley said he rose to remind ministers that they had some radical supporters in the house, a circumstance which they appeared to have forgotten. After hearing the speech from the throne, he could not avoid asking to what purpose they had been so anxious, in 1835, to eject Sir Robert Peel and the Conservatives? It was complained of the speech from the throne framed by Sir Robert in that year, that it was vague and unsatisfactory: he, Mr. Wakley, had never read a speech from any sovereign of this country more open to the same reproach than the present one. He thought that at the commencement of a new reign, with a young queen educated as ours had been, the people had a right to expect a more explicit acknowledgment of their grievances, and some indication of the means of redress. They were now fresh from the hustings, where they had all been liberal in promises: even the Tories had professed themselves the friends of the people, and declared their delight in seeing the operatives come forward, and take a share in politics. In order to test the sincerity of both parties, he would move an amendment, in general terms, in favour of an extension of the suffrage. Mr. Wakley concluded his speech by moving three amendments, which he said he would put to the house separately, in order that members might have no excuse for avoiding to vote on any particular proposition. The first amendment was to the effect, “That this house embraces the earliest opportunity of respectfully assuring her majesty, that it will in the present session of parliament take into consideration the state of the representation of the people in this branch of the legislature, with a view to ensure by law an equitable extension of the elective franchise.” This amendment was seconded by Sir W. Molesworth, and supported by Messrs. Hume and Grote. On the other hand it was opposed by Mr. Liddell, Colonel Perceval, and Lord John Russell. The latter admitted the reproach—if reproach it were—of having framed the speech with a view to preclude discussion. It was desirable that the queen should receive from her first parliament an unanimous address. In allusion to Mr. Wakley’s amendment, his lordship observed that the hon. member had put his powders into three separate papers, as portions of what he considered the same medicine. Without entering into any general discussion of the questions involved in those amendments. He thought it necessary shortly to state his opinion of the present operation of the reform bill, and of his own position with respect to it. He admitted the disadvantages and injuries to which the reform act was subject; corruption and intimidation had prevailed at the late elections to a great extent. With respect to the registration of voters great amendments had been made. These were points on which it behoved parliament to be always attentive, to see that the act suffered no essential injury, and to remedy any error in the details which experience of its actual working might suggest. But these, his lordship continued, were questions widely different from those now brought forward, such as the ballot, the extension of the suffrage, and triennial parliaments, which were, in his estimation, a repeal of the reform act, and placed the representation on a totally different footing. He was not prepared to go thus far. With respect to registration, Lord John Russell said that the attorney-general was about to bring forward the bill of last session in an amended form, and he himself would reintroduce the measure respecting the payment of rates. But as to a second reform of the representation, having only five years ago placed it on a new basis, it would be a most unwise and unsound experiment, now to begin anew the process of reconstruction; he, for one, at least, would decline taking any share in such a measure. Sir Robert Peel congratulated the house upon the noble lord’s aversion to Mr. Wakley’s physic. The member for Finsbury called for a change, in order to recover for himself and his party the predominance they had lost; but he was confident that if he were to give Mr. Wakley a _carte blanche_ to cut and carve the constituency as he pleased, he and his party would still be in a minority. Mr. Ward, on the other hand, warned Lord John Russell that by his declaration against the ballot, he had signed his own death-warrant, and chalked out his political grave. On a division, Mr. Wakley’s amendment was negatived by five hundred and nine against twenty; and his two other amendments, pledging the house to the vote by ballot and the repeal of the septennial act, were then put, and negatived without a division.

The question having been again put on the address, Mr. Harvey proposed an amendment to this effect:—“That whilst this house is desirous of making the most liberal provision for the support of the becoming splendour and just dignity of the crown, they feel that the same ought to be derived from obvious and direct sources; and that to such end every branch of the hereditary revenues of the crown ought to be placed, without reservation, and without exception, under the control of parliament, as the surest means of protecting the crown against exaggerated impressions of their amount, and as a security against their misapplication.” The amendment further set forth, that in the arrangement of the civil list, the house confidently relied upon the ready co-operation of her majesty, in promoting all needful inquiry into the claims of persons to be continued as recipients of state provision. In moving this amendment, Mr. Harvey observed that the former part of it was in substance the same with the proposition ministers had themselves made on the subject when in opposition. He pressed the second part of his amendment, on the ground that a strong feeling existed in the public mind against it as it now stood, which feeling was materially strengthened by the late alteration in the poor-law system. He assured ministers that they had not a superabundance of popularity, and he predicted that Lord John Russell’s declaration of that night would operate fatally to his government. In reply, Lord John Russell contented himself with stating that an account of the actual and average receipts from the duties in question would be laid before the committees; and that with respect to the pension list, the precedent of 1831 would be strictly followed. Ministers agreed in thinking it far wiser to provide against abuses for the future, than to take away pensions already granted. If the revision proposed by the hon. member should be adopted by parliament, ministers would claim the right of further consideration, before they decided whether or not they should give it their support. After a few words from Mr. Harvey in rejoinder, his amendment was put and negatived without a division.

Lord John Russell’s determination to resist any further movement in the way of constitutional innovation, was made the subject of indignant comment on the part of the radical organs, both in parliament and throughout the country.

THE SUBJECT OF THE CIVIL LIST DEBATED.

The subject first brought before the attention of parliament by ministers was the arrangement of the civil list. On the 23rd of November the chancellor of the exchequer moved that the passage in the queen’s speech relating thereto should be referred to a select committee. He observed that former sovereigns had inherited considerable personal property from their predecessors, while Queen Victoria had derived nothing from that source, and would further be deprived of the revenues of Hanover, now a separate kingdom. Her establishment must also so far exceed that of a king or of a queen-consort, as being composed of ladies as well as gentlemen. Under those circumstances Mr. Rice submitted that the charges of the establishment of the late king were proper for Queen Victoria, These charges were:—

William IV. The Queen.

First class, privy purse........ £110,000 £60,600

Second class, salaries.......... 130,000 130,000

Third class, bills ............ 171,500 172,000

Fourth class, special service... 23,000 23,200

Unappropriated money............ 9,000

Total £510,000 £470,000

In conclusion, Mr. Rice touched upon the decrease in the amount of the pension list, and said he should be prepared to prove that the pensions granted by Earl Grey and Lord Melbourne had been awarded in strict conformity with a resolution of the house passed in February, 1834, which recommended the granting of pensions to such persons only as by their services to the crown, or the public, or by useful discoveries in science or art, had a just claim on the benevolence of the crown or the gratitude of the nation. The papers with reference to the civil list were referred to a select committee, consisting of twenty-one members. The result of their labours was a report in favour of the minister’s proposition, which was presented on the 16th of December, when a bill carrying out his views was brought in. The bill was read a third time on the 19th of December, after which Mr. Hume moved that the sum granted to the queen should be reduced from £385,000 to £335,000; and this motion having been negatived, Mr. Grote proposed as an amendment the entire removal of the sum allotted to pensions from the civil list. This amendment was seconded by Mr. Hume, and opposed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who contended that in a monarchical government, the power of conferring honour and rewards should be inseparably attached to the crown. The principle advocated by the honourable member struck at the very root of monarchy. Mr. Rice proceeded to deny that politics had influenced ministers in their grant of pensions to literary and scientific men, as had been asserted by Mr. Grote, and expressed his belief that were any government disposed so to prostitute its power, there was a spirit in literature and science which would save talent from the disgrace of such political profligacy. Mr. Grote’s motion was further opposed by Mr. Charles Buller, albeit he was his friend. He differed from him both as to tire policy of granting pensions at all, and in respect to the quarter in which the power of according them should be placed. He thought that it was desirable that men of letters should be fostered by the government, when labouring for the public good, and without the support of popular favour. Scarcely a great name in English literature could be produced which had not been supported by regal or individual generosity. At the present day, men of letters would not brook to receive the bounty of private individuals: men like Hobbes or Locke, could no longer consent to depend on the liberality of an Earl of Devonshire, or an Earl of Shaftesbury. On a division Mr. Grote’s amendment was rejected by a majority of one hundred and twenty-five to twenty-three. An amendment was then moved by Sir Robert Peel, to the effect that if the sum of £1200 were not granted in pensions in any one year, the difference might be applied in any subsequent year. No opposition was made to this amendment on the part of ministers; but the Radicals divided against them, and it was carried by a majority of one hundred and fourteen to twenty-six. Another and last protest was made against the bill by Mr. Hume, but the bill passed without further division.

The bill was taken to the lords and read a first time on the same evening. Lord Melbourne moved the second reading on the 20th, and in doing so entered into a full explanation of the details of the bill, and emphatically called upon the peers to support it, as they valued the preservation of the monarchy, laws, and liberties of England. He would not say that monarchy was the best form of government that ever existed, but an attempt to alter it in this country would be the height of insanity and crime. The only opposition to the measure in the house of lords came from Lord Brougham, who contended that due consideration had not been employed either in the framing or passing of this bill. The wisdom of making a definite arrangement for the life of a sovereign who might be expected to reign for the next half century was questionable; and yet this was to be done, and a civil list voted which exceeded that of lier majesty’s predecessors, while parliament was left in the dark as to those very important revenues possessed by the crown, the incomes of the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. After a few words from the Duke of Wellington, who expressed his apprehensions that the bill did not contain a sufficient provision for pensions, the bill went through the committee, and was afterwards read a third time and passed without a division. It was customary that the royal assent should be given to bills of this nature in person, and the queen went in state to the house of lords on the 23rd of December for that purpose. On presenting the bill, the speaker observed, that it had been framed in “a liberal and confiding spirit,” on which the queen bowed her acknowledgment, and after the royal assent had been given to that and other bills, her majesty left the house.

On the 11th of December, a message was brought from the queen to both houses, recommending to the consideration of parliament the provision made by law for the support of her royal highness the Duchess of Kent, and expressing her majesty’s reliance on their zeal and loyalty to adopt such measures for the future provision of the duchess as her rank and station, and increased proximity to the throne might require. On the following day this message was taken into consideration by a committee of the house of commons, when an additional grant of £8000 a year, raising the annual income of the duchess to £30,000, passed without much discussion.

THE SUBJECT OF THE PENSION LIST.

The chancellor of the exchequer redeemed a pledge which he had given in the debate on the civil list, by moving “for a select committee to inquire how far pensions granted in virtue of the first of William IV.