Chapter 55

{VICTORIA. 1838—1839}

Parliament reassembles: Debates on Canada; Address to the Throne moved by Lord John Russell; Bill for suspending; the Lower Canadian Constitution..... The Question of Election Committees..... Motion for the Ballot..... Parliamentary Qualification Bill..... Personal Attacks..... Revival of Anti-slavery Agitation..... Debates on the Irish Poor-law Bill: the Bill carried in the Commons..... Motion for the Repeal of the Appropriation Clause..... Ministerial Plan for settling the Tithe Question..... Committee of the House of Commons upon the Irish Municipal Bill; the Bill rejected..... The Coronation..... Debates in the House of Commons on the Irish Tithe Question..... The Irish Poor Law Bill carried in the Lords..... Projected Formation of a Colony in New Zealand..... Financial Statements..... Motion for Repeal of the Corn Laws..... Various Improvements in the Law..... A Select Committee to inquire into the Operation of the Poor Laws..... Combinations in England and Ireland..... Debates in Parliament on John Thorn, alias Sir William Courtenay..... Committee on Church Lands..... Act for abolishing Pluralities..... The Subject of Education discussed in both Houses..... The Question of Canada renewed..... Queen Prorogues Parliament..... Disaffection among the Working Classes..... Proposed Reduction of the Rates of Postage..... The State of Ireland..... The Affairs of Canada..... The State of the Continent.

PARLIAMENT REASSEMBLES—DEBATES ON CANADA—ADDRESS TO THE THRONE MOVED BY LORD JOHN RUSSELL—BILL FOR SUSPENDING THE LOWER CANADIAN CONSTITUTION.

{A.D. 1838}

Parliament reassembled on the 16th of January. The first subject brought under notice was the affairs of Canada. This subject was introduced by Lord John Russell, who, after recapitulating the principal events that had occurred since the connexion of that colony with Great Britain down to the report of the Committee in 1828, took up his ground on that report, which the assembly of Lower Canada had characterised as “an imperishable monument to the justice and profound wisdom of the committee, an authentic testimonial of the reality of their grievances and of the justice of their complaints, faithfully interpreting their wishes and their wants.” It might have been supposed, said his lordship, that after the people and the government of this country had proved themselves anxious to perform all that was asked for, and that was indicated by the reports of the committee, the Canadians would have been not only satisfied, but willing to express their cordiality towards the British government. The case, however, was the very reverse of this. On the 6th of December, 1828, the house of assembly resolved, “That on the permanent settlement before mentioned being effected, it would be expedient to render the governor, lieutenant-governor, or person administering the government for the time being, the judges and executive councillors, independent of the annual vote of that house, to the extent of their present salaries.” Having adverted to other resolutions indicative of the growing dissatisfaction of the Canadians, Lord John Russell proceeded to state what had been done in order to remedy the grievances set forth in those resolutions. The independence of the judges was demanded; and Lord Ripon, then colonial-secretary, had fully concurred in its reasonableness, and had suggested a method for carrying it into effect. The house of assembly, however, instead of following out that suggestion, tacked to the law by which the independence of the judges was to be secured, certain provisions relating to the hereditary revenues of the crown, and to the establishment of a court of impeachment for the judges. Then as regarded the subject on which the widest difference between the assembly and the imperial government had existed, no opposition had been offered to the terms of the assembly’s resolutions. The judges were informed, instantly, that, with the exception of the chief-justice, it was no longer desirable that they should sit in the legislative council; and a number of persons were added to that body totally independent of the crown, and giving a great majority in the council to those who were unconnected with the government. Of the forty members in the council, indeed, not less than eighteen were French Canadians: many of the members of English origin had quitted the province, and but seven remained in official connexion with the government. Another grievance related to the crown and clergy reserves; and Lord Ripon had declared it was time to put an end to the old system; and only differed from the assembly in wishing to prevent an undue facility from being afforded to poor and improvident purchasers of waste lands. Concessions had also been made with reference to the property of the Jesuits, which had been ordered to be applied to educational purposes; and on the much-contested, question of the duties collected under the earlier acts, and which the crown had, according to law, the right of appropriating. The Canadians, however, made but a poor return for these concessions. In 1833, a supply-bill, containing the most unusual conditions, passed the house of assembly; and in the following year the assembly adopted a course which had led to the present difficulties. It passed ninety-two resolutions, some of grievance, some of eulogy, and some of vituperation, and amounting in the whole to a long and vehement remonstrance; and after spending an entire session in framing it, it separated without having passed any bill of supply. Since that time no supplies had been voted. The demeanour of the house of assembly in the following years remained unaltered. At the commencement of his speech, Lord John Russell proposed a bill to suspend for a certain time the existing constitution of Lower Canada; and at the same time moved an address pledging the house to assist her majesty in restoring tranquillity to her Canadian dominions, His lordship in the course of his speech gave an outline of the intended bill. Mr. Hume entered at considerable length into a recapitulation of the past and present grievances of the Canadians. He laid the blame of all that had passed upon the government; and said that “it was not the man who shed blood, but the man who stimulated him to shed it, who was the guilty party.” Mr. Grote likewise opposed the proposed address. He threw the responsibility of the failure of the measure which had been taken to adjust the financial disputes, upon Lord Ripon. Not content, he said, with advancing a claim to the appropriation of the casual and territorial revenues to the purposes of civil government without the consent of the house of assembly, that noble lord had thought fit to propose to make them over to the clergy; a step which was at once novel and preposterous, and only embroiled matters still further. Sir Robert Peel promised his cordial assent to the address, because this country had acted with justice and liberality towards Canada. He thought that the military force in the colony should have been immediately increased. In reply, Lord Howick endeavoured to show that the government was not culpable in omitting to back their resolutions of the last year with a military force. He argued that regiments were not necessary to put down meetings: they could not stop speeches, prevent resolutions, or obtain juries to convict men for seditious practices. An additional regiment introduced into Halifax had, in fact, served greatly to increase the existing discontents. Mr. Charles Buller supported the address: the law should be vindicated, and the insurgents put down without parley, unless we were prepared to consent to a separation, and leave Canada to itself. There was no ground for separation, nor could we with any regard to the interests of the colony consent to abandon it; but we ought to comply without delay with all the just demands of the Canadians. Mr. Leader complained of being taken by surprise; and wished the house to adjourn for the purpose of giving himself and his friends time to consider what course they should take, and an opportunity of refuting the “fallacies contained in the noble lord’s speech.” This was opposed by Lord John Russell; and on a division the motion for an address was carried by one hundred and eighty-eight against twenty-eight.

On the following day Lord John Russell brought in his proposed bill for the suspension of the existing constitution of Canada. Its leading object was to enable the governor-general and council, on the motion of the governor, to pass any laws which might be considered necessary, during the present suspension of the legislature of the province. In addition to the means for suppressing the insurrection, the bill would authorise the governor-general to grant a general amnesty. With respect to the future government of Canada, his lordship said, that it was the intention of ministers that the governor-general should be invested with power to convene a certain number of persons; namely, three from the legislative councils of each of the two provinces, and ten “representatives” from each, to form a council to concert with the governor-general as to the measures which might be deemed advisable for the adjustment of the affairs of the province. The persons to be named would be chosen by the governor-general, while those who were to be convened, having a “representative character,” might of course be taken from the legislative assembly. But as in Lower Canada it was almost impossible that the assembly would be brought to act beneficially, it would be competent to the governor-general, both in the upper and lower province, to hold elections for persons, amounting to twenty in the whole, to concert with him upon the general state of affairs. Sir Hussey Vivian said that Mr. Hume had constantly stated in that house that he anticipated a revolt. No man had a greater right to foretell such an event. The man Martin had recently foretold the destruction of Yorkminster; and he had set it on fire to fulfil his prediction. In that same manner Mr. Hume had taken measures for the fulfilment of his prophecy. Sir George Grey, the under-secretary for the colonial department, in reply to some doubts which had been raised by Mr. Hume, with respect to the loyalty of the other North American colonies, cited facts to prove that the best possible spirit existed in Nova Scotia and New-Brunswick. Mr. Grote presented a petition from Mr. Roebuck, praying that he might be heard at the bar in defence of the house of assembly of Lower Canada, and in opposition to the ministerial bill. Lord John Russell thought that the house should be allowed time to consider precedents; and after some further conversation Mr. Grote gave notice that he should call the attention of the house to the subject on the 22nd instant.

The subject of Canada was brought before the lords on the 18th by Lord Glenelg, who moved an appropriate address to the queen. After adverting to the disturbances in that province, he made reference to the intended bill. With respect to ulterior arrangements his lordship saw great difficulties in the way of a legislative union between the two provinces, but thought that considerable advantage might be made of a federal union. In conclusion, his lordship defended the conduct of government in not having provided more troops for the suppression of the insurrection. Lord Brougham ridiculed Lord Glenelg’s despatches, to which that noble lord had referred in his speech. The despatches were certainly the products of a mind inadequately furnished with the experience and knowledge necessary for the task imposed upon it, but the honest intentions of the writer were equally apparent, and might have protected him from the kind of invective to which the noble logomachist subjected him. The whole speech of Lord Brougham was as damaging to himself as to the government which he assailed. He pursued the government with his irony and abuse, not because they fell beneath him in point of honour or principle, but because they refused him their confidence as Lord Chancellor, when his indiscretions and bullying rendered him alike odious to the court and unendurable to the cabinet. His lordship might fairly be considered as much the “standing counsel” for the rebellious Canadians in the lords, as Mr. Roebuck was in the commons. Nevertheless, the denunciations of the government by the eccentric peer were in the main grounded upon their errors and vacillation, and these vices in their administration were depicted with a scathing eloquence, and a malignant spirit. Lord Brougham played the part of a mere partisan, and was set down by the country for such. The patriotic prestige associated with his name passed away. Lord Melbourne, in reply, characterized Lord Brougham’s speech as “a laboured and extreme concentration of bitterness.” Concerning the charge against ministers of neglect in not providing against the possibility of an outbreak, his lordship said, that it was a difficult question which they had at the time to decide. By not re-enforcing the troops they ran the hazard of what had in fact occurred; but, on the other hand, had a considerable force been sent out, there would have been an end to all chance of an amicable termination of the disputes. It would have been instantly said, that we were filling Canada with troops, and thus manifesting a fixed intention of putting down public opinion by the force of arms. The Duke of Wellington thought that the proceeding’s should have originated in a message from the throne. With reference to the military force, he said, that he must do ministers the justice to say that he could not blame them for not having taken more active measures. He knew several officers in Canada; and the opinions of these officers, as communicated to him, were, that there was not the smallest reason to apprehend anything like insurrection in Lower Canada. At the same time his grace said, that he could not understand, when ministers had found it expedient to move troops from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into Canada, they did not despatch fresh troops to supply the vacancy thereby occasioned. After a few words from Lord Ripon, who condemned the conduct of government, the Marquess of Lansdowne applauded the candid terms in which the Duke of Wellington had expressed his opinion on the military part of the question. The Earl of Durham, who was about to go to Canada as governor, said, that it was impossible for words to express the reluctance with which he had undertaken the arduous task, and incurred the awful responsibility which must await him in his endeavours to execute the objects of his mission. Nothing but the most determined devotion to her majesty’s service, and the welfare of his country, could have induced him to place himself in a situation in which he feared he should neither answer the expectations of his friends nor of the nation. Having noticed the various tasks which would devolve upon him, his lordship said, with an apparent foreboding of what was to ensue, that he could not perform them without the cordial and energetic support of her majesty’s cabinet, and the co-operation of the imperial parliament. Lord Glenelg closed the debate by retaliating on Lord Brougham for his fierce denunciations, and by contrasting his conduct with that of the Duke of Wellington, whose candour and magnanimity he warmly applauded. The address was agreed to.

According to notice, Mr. Grote, on the 22nd, moved that Mr. Roebuck be heard at the bar on behalf of the assembly of Lower Canada. Mr. Roebuck relied on his title to be heard as general agent for Canada, but Mr. Gladstone said that he was not aware of any constitutional right or privilege of colonies to appoint agents with powers of this general description. If allowed in practice, it must lead to interminable confusion. Lords John Russell and Stanley also expressed their aversion to hearing Mr. Roebuck as an agent of Canada; but the motion was nevertheless acceded to. On the motion of Lord John Russell, the bill for suspending the constitution of Lower Canada was read a second time; after which Mr. Roebuck proceeded to address the house from the bar. His speech was by no means conciliatory; on the contrary, his care seems to have been to select such topics as were most likely to prove generally offensive to its temper and prejudices. In one passage he remarked:—“Talk to me of being frightened at being called a traitor—at being told that my life is forfeited—at the newspapers setting forth that I am to be sent to the Tower! Do you think that I am to be frightened by such petty warfare? If I be guilty, why are there not some who dare accuse me lawfully? My papers have been seized: let them be produced. I have not run away; because I know that there is a jury in England who will render justice to the accused.” On Mr. Roebuck’s withdrawal, Mr. Hume moved the postponement of the committal to that day six months. This motion was opposed by Sir George Grey, who replied to Mr. Roebuck’s speech in a very able harangue. The subject was renewed on the 23rd by Sir William Molesworth. Mr. E. L. Bulwer gave ministers his cordial support. He thanked them for their determination to uphold the integrity of the empire, and the maintenance of the laws; and he thanked them as a friend to a liberal and popular policy, for their declared resolution to redress the grievances of Canada. He would ask Mr. Warburton and his friends, whether they were aware that till within the last seventy years printing-presses were forbidden in Canada; that at the present day the vast majority of the electors could neither read nor write; and that it often happened that the foreman of a jury could not give in the verdict because of his inability to read it? Was this a colony fit for independence? If it were a republic to-morrow, it would be a monster in legislation—half-jacobinism, half-feudalism. Mr. Bulwer designated Mr. Warburton and his friends, in the course of his speech, by the term “philosophical Radicals.” Mr. Grote, in reply, said that the designation was quite as respectable as that of “literary Whig.” The debate was closed by Lord John Russell. On a division the motion for going into committee was carried by a majority of two hundred and sixty-two against sixteen.

On the 25th Lord John Russell, in moving that “the speaker leave the chair,” informed the house that in looking over the bill he had discovered a number of verbal amendments to be necessary, and as it was desirable that these should be introduced before the discussion was resumed, he moved that the house should go into committee _pro forma_, in order to afford an opportunity for making the requisite alterations. Upon the question being put that the speaker leave the chair, Mr. Warburton rose and made a long speech in opposition, which was utterly devoid of any practicable suggestions. A long and rambling debate followed, without any result.

The house finally went into committee on the bill, and proceeded to consider its several clauses and the amendments proposed. The bill was read a third time, and passed on the 29th of January, by a majority of one hundred and ten against eight; the few non-contents being Radicals.

The bill came before the house of lords on the 2nd of February, when it was opposed by Lord Brougham, in a speech of great length, and in an acrimonious spirit. Lord Aberdeen also, though he supported the measure, expressed his contempt of the conduct of the government. Lord Melbourne had quietly endured the repeated attacks which had been made upon ministers; but on this occasion he retorted upon Lord Brougham’s censures with effect, convicting him of a change of principles. Lord Brougham, however, denied that he had changed his principles: it was the changed conduct of others that had compelled him to oppose them. The Duke of Wellington reproduced many of the objections that had been urged in the other house; and Lord Wharncliffe, after censuring the conduct of ministers, gave a reluctant assent to the bill. On the 5th of February, Mr. Roebuck, on the motion of Lord Brougham, was heard by the house as agent of the house of assembly of Lower Canada; but his speech could not arrest the progress of the bill. It was passed on the 8th of February; Lords Ellenborough, Fitzwilliam, and Brougham entering their protest against it on the journals of the house, though on different grounds.

The more important provisions of this bill were that the constitution of Lower Canada was suspended till November, 1840; that her majesty in council was empowered to constitute a special council, and to appoint, or authorize the governor to appoint, such and so many special councillors as she might think proper; that, until November, 1840, it should be lawful for the governor, with the advice and consent of the majority of the said councillors convened for the purpose, to make such laws or ordinances for the peace, welfare, and good government of Lower Canada, as the legislature of that province, at the time of passing the act, was empowered; and that all laws or ordinances so made, subject to the provisions thereinafter contained for disallowance thereof by her majesty, should have the like force and effect as laws passed by the legislative bodies. The governor was further to have the initiative of all measures proposed in the council, five of whom were required for a quorum. Certain restrictive provisoes followed these provisions; and it was directed that a copy of every such law or ordinance “be transmitted to the home government;” and her majesty was empowered, by an order in council, to disallow the same at any time within two years of its receipt.

THE QUESTION OF ELECTION COMMITTEES, ETC.

The necessity of an alteration in the mode of trying controverted elections under the Grenville act had been for some time recognised. A committee had been appointed to examine into this subject in 1837; and Mr. Charles Buller, who had been chairman of that committee, had, on the 21st of November last, obtained leave to bring in a bill similar in its provisions to one which had been in the hands of members in the preceding session, though it had not been discussed. This bill, in its original shape, provided that three assessors, barristers of seven years’ standing, should be appointed by the speaker to act as chairmen of election committees for the session only, and as a court of appeal from the revising barristers on matters of law. Subsequently, when this bill was in progress, it was thought better that the first assessors should be named in the act, and that the future appointments should be placed at the disposal of the speaker, subject to the confirmation of the house. On the same day Mr. O’Connell said that he also had devised a plan, which he was anxious to submit to the consideration of the house; and he likewise obtained leave to bring in a bill for a similar purpose. Mr. Buller’s bill came on for the second reading on the 27th of November, when it was opposed by Lord Stanley, who moved that the second reading be postponed till the 12th of May, in order that the question might receive a fuller consideration. Mr. Williams Wynn approved of the bill; and Mr. O’Connell abandoned his own in its favour. Lord John Russell recommended that the bill should be read a second time, thinking that it at least provided some remedy for the evils complained of. On a division the second reading was carried by a majority of two hundred and fourteen against one hundred and sixty. Nothing further was done, however, before Christmas, except that there was much discussion on the subject of election committees.

The house of commons was again occupied with the subject of controverted elections on the 2nd of April. On the motion for the re-committal of Mr. C. Buller’s bill, Sir Robert Peel rose for the purpose of bringing the subject generally before the house, and of submitting to their consideration a proposition of his own. Sir Robert’s scheme was, that the speaker should nominate a committee, which should be called “a general committee for elections,” and which should consist of four or six, or some such limited number. To this committee he would leave the duty of appointing select committees, by whom election petitions were to be tried. These last committees might consist of seven or nine members, and each was to have the aid of an assessor who should be its chairman, and in all respects on an equal footing with the members of the committee. These persons were not to be permanent, but employed as occasion might demand. There was to be no attendance of members at a ballot and the operation of chance was entirely excluded. Mr. O’Connell still thought it would be advisable to take the adjudication of these contests out of the present hands, and to transfer it to the judges. He moved as an amendment, that Mr. Buller’s bill should be referred to a select committee, who might report on the subject at large. Lord Stanley moved that Mr. Buller’s bill be considered that day six months; and proposed that a committee should be appointed to examine the conflicting cases, and to report on a mode of giving uniformity to the law. Mr. Shiel approved of Sir Robert Peel’s plan; but he thought that party spirit would stand in the way of their obtaining a declaratory act, since on some questions the two parties in parliament were systematically opposed to each other. Mr. O’Connell’s proposition was negatived, and Mr. Buller consented to withdraw his measure. On the 10th of May, therefore, Sir Robert Peel moved for leave to bring in his bill, dropping that part of his scheme, however, which established assessors. Leave was given to bring in the bill; but the attorney-general thought that all that was necessary was to repeal the Grenville act. They might then go on making one experiment after another, until they arrived at some plan that would give universal satisfaction.

Before the Christmas recess, the freemen and parliamentary electors’ bill, which had been dropped in the preceding session, had been reintroduced. The two grand objects of this bill were to relieve householders entitled to the elective franchise, by extending the time fixed by the reform bill for payment of rates and taxes; and to remove the stamp-duty payable by freemen on their admission. The former part of the bill met with much opposition; and Mr. T. Duncombe moved an amendment, tending altogether to repeal the rate-paying clause of the reform act. This amendment, however, was rejected, and the original clause carried by a large majority. The third reading of the bill came on on the 19th of February, when it was condemned by Sir Robert Peel as involving a serious infraction of the great principle understood to be settled when the reform bill was passed. The bill was finally passed by the commons, by a majority of one hundred and eighty-nine against one hundred and seventy-two; but it was rejected in the house of lords on the second reading, on the 8th of March. The house of commons passed another bill, conceding tire desired relief to freemen alone; but the session closed before the lords were called upon to take it into consideration.

MOTION FOR THE BALLOT.

On the 15th of February Mr. Grote made his annual motion for the ballot. The debate at this time was expected with considerable interest, because it was generally understood to be a question which was becoming an element of disunion in the camp of the reformers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ward, and supported by Mr. E. L. Bulwer. Mr. Ward, in seconding the motion, intimated that after Lord John Russell’s declaration respecting the ballot, the extension of the suffrage, and the duration of parliaments, the people were anxious to see how far the other members of the administration were prepared to identify their opinions with those of the noble lord. He represented the constituents of Sir John Hobhouse, Mr. Poulett Thomson, Sir Hussey Vivian, and Sir Henry Parnell as especially watching their conduct in this matter, and concluded by expressing his conviction that anything like a government opposition to the measure would “have for its effect the production of a new combination most important to the country and to that house.” Lord John Russell again manfully stated his general objections to the change; and Sir Robert Peel, in a speech of considerable power, attacked the system of secret voting with effect. On a division, the motion was lost by a majority of three hundred and fifteen against one hundred and ninety-eight.

PARLIAMENTARY QUALIFICATION BILL.

During this session a bill was introduced and passed, which had for its object the extension to personal property of the privilege hitherto confined to real property, as regarded a qualification for parliament. By this act, an estate for life, or for the life of another; or a term of years of which thirteen shall be unexpired at the time of election, or personal estate and effects of any description within the United Kingdom, or the interest or dividends of such, may constitute either the whole or part of the sum required to qualify a member. By another clause, every member before he takes his seat is required to deliver to the clerk, while the house is sitting, a paper signed by himself, containing a statement of the real or personal property whereby he makes out his qualification. By the same clause he is also called upon to subscribe a declaration, that to the best of his belief he is duly qualified to be elected a member of the house. To make a false declaration is declared to be a misdeameanour, and the election becomes void if the member sits or votes without complying with the provisions of the acts. This statute, however, does not extend to the members for the universities, to the eldest sons of peers, or to persons qualified to be knight of the shire.

PERSONAL ATTACKS.

On the 6th of March Sir William Molesworth, with a view of bringing the whole colonial administration of the empire before the consideration of the house of commons, moved that an address be presented to her majesty, respectfully expressing the opinion of the house, that in the present critical state of many of her majesty’s foreign possessions, the colonial minister should be a person in whose diligence, activity, and firmness the house and the public may be able to place reliance; and declaring that her majesty’s present secretary of state for the colonies does not enjoy the confidence of the house or the country. The right honourable baronet prefaced his motion by a speech of two hours’ duration. His speech was very moderate, although it might have appeared that he was guided by some acrimonious feeling in selecting Lord Glenelg for attack. Mr. Leader seconded the motion; and Lord Palmerston undertook the defence of the colonial secretary. He would meet the motion by a simple negative. Lord Sandon said that he had expected that the affairs of Canada would have formed the basis of the present motion. Lord Palmerston was right in saying that it should not have been directed against Lord Glenelg alone, but against the entire administration. He could not vote with Sir William Molesworth; nor could he be content with a simple negative of his motion. He considered that the troubles in Canada were attributable to the misconduct of ministers; and under these circumstances he should move an amendment, in the shape of an address to the queen, in which would be laid down his own principles, and those of the party with whom he acted. His lordship’s address expressed the regret of the house at the treasonable movements in Canada, and their determination to aid her in the suppression of the revolt, and the establishment of a sound constitution; but representing also their opinion, that the present state of things in that colony was mainly owing to the want of foresight and energy, and to the ambiguous, dilatory, and irresolute course of her majesty’s ministers. Lord Stanley then addressed the house, and after a speech from Sir Charles Grey the house adjourned; and on the following evening the debate was renewed, many members expressing their opinions on the subject. In the course of his speech Lord John Russell directed some bitter remarks against Lord Stanley, and said that in respect of temper and judgment he was more comfortable now that Lord Glenelg was his colleague than he was when the former nobleman was at the head of the colonial department. His lordship demanded to know whether in the event of the resignation of ministers, there existed means of forming a better administration, or whether the tories could safely appeal to the test of a popular election? Lord John Russell concluded by suggesting to Sir William Molesworth the expediency of withdrawing his motion, in order that the house might divide upon the amendment. The right honourable baronet consented to this; but said that, for his own part, he felt precluded from voting on either side on the amendment of Lord Sandon. On a division ministers had a majority of twenty-nine only; the numbers being, against the amendment, three hundred and sixteen; for it, two hundred and eighty-seven.

REVIVAL OF ANTI-SLAVERY AGITATION, ETC.

At this period anti-slavery agitation again became the order of the day. On the one hand there existed a large class of declaimers and needy orators who were interested in the revival of the subject; and on the other, there was a powerful body of humane people, to whom the contemplation of the sufferings of the negro people had become habitual, and who required little inducement to recur to such an exciting theme. But there was a cause for this display of philanthropy: the slave was still in chains, and was still suffering from the lash of the hard-hearted driver. The legislatures also in the colonies were not free from blame; they acted in many cases with obstinacy and intemperance; and Jamaica especially afforded many instances of systematic violations of the imperial law. The apprentice system, in point of fact, was a complete failure: it produced on the part of the slaves contumacy; and on the part of the masters breaches of the law, cruelty, and violence. From these circumstances there was no difficulty in lighting up a flame in England on the subject. Meetings were held and petitions got up, with a view of hastening the time when the slave should become a man among his fellow-men. The subject of slavery was brought before the house of lords, on the 29th of January, by Lord Brougham, who, after presenting a petition from Leeds, praying the immediate abolition of negro slavery, delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the enormities still committed in the slave-trade. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Glenelg admitted that Lord Brougham’s statements of the horrors of slavery were substantially correct. In his speech his lordship had said, that British officers were induced to allow vessels equipped for the slave-trade to escape, in order to secure the head-money, and to wait at the mouth of rivers till the cargoes had been shipped. Lord Minto, first lord of the admiralty, in reply, said, that he would not assert that no single instance of this nature had occurred; but he could say that none such had come to his knowledge, and that he did not believe a similar case had ever existed. He could assure their lordships that the only complaint he had heard against British officers thus employed, was, that they were too ready to take these vessels, and too little careful of themselves, not attending sufficiently to their own security against prosecutions. Every letter he received from those officers lamented the difficulties in the way of obtaining the means of the capture and conviction of these vessels until the cargo was embarked; and they all pressed for the conclusion of further treaties. If those treaties could be extended to all nations under whose flag the traffic was carrying on, there would be no difficulty in putting it down. The case was not the same with respect to Spain as to Portugal. With the former there was a treaty which enabled us to capture all slavers under her flag; but our cruisers could not capture vessels under Portuguese colours until they had taken in their cargoes. Lord Brougham asked, if a reward according to the tonnage of the vessel captured could not be substituted for head-money? His views were supported by Lords Ellenborough and Ashburton, the latter of whom said strong measures should be taken to compel Portugal to desist from the traffic. Lord Glenelg said, that Lord Palmerston was engaged in negotiating a treaty with that country, with a view of putting a stop to the trade. He thought with Lord Brougham that our interference had aggravated the horrors of slavery; but at the same time he contended that parliament had no alternative but to act as it had done; and that the fear of increasing the evil ought not to have prevented us from taking steps to extirpate the practice. The conversation on this subject here dropped; but it was renewed again on the 20th of February by Lord Brougham, who urged upon the house the propriety of immediately emancipating the negro apprentices. His speech on this occasion gained for him the golden opinions of the good and the wise. He commenced by painting in poetic language the “delicate, calm, and tranquil joy” which pervaded the Antilles on the day when slavery ceased to exist. He continued to show that the predictions of those who had declared that labour would cease when slavery was abolished, had failed. Twice as much sugar was made under the new system; and one planter had said, that with twenty free labourers he could do the work of a hundred slaves. His lordship next proceeded to show that the slave-holders had not kept faith with this country, and that the condition of the negroes, instead of being made better, was in many respects worse than before. They were, he said, the victims of partial tribunals, and of excessive and illegal punishments; and he related the case of eleven females having perished from the punishments inflicted upon them, but whose deaths were, nevertheless, ascribed by a coroner’s jury to “the visitation of God.” At the conclusion of his speech his lordship, after moving that an address be presented to her majesty, beseeching her to take steps for the suppression of the slave-trade, laid these resolutions on the table:—“That the practice of paying head-money to British cruisers should be discontinued. That letters of marque should be issued to private individuals, empowering them to fit out vessels for the capture of slavers. That it was expedient that the period of prædial apprenticeship should cease on the 1st of August, 1838.” The resolutions also further indicated certain regulations for the protection of apprentices in the meantime. Lord Glenelg, in a powerful speech, objected to Lord Brougham’s propositions of issuing letters of marque to privateers, and the discontinuance of head-money. With respect to the condition of the apprentices in the West India colonies, he contended that the change had been more advantageous than Lord Brougham had supposed, although he allowed that abuses and difficulties of a serious nature did exist. Still he did not think that sudden emancipation would be for the advantage of the negroes; and he must, therefore, oppose Lord Brougham’s resolutions. Lord Brougham took the sense of the house on the resolution which regarded immediate emancipation; and on a division it was lost by a majority of thirty-one against seven.

Soon after this the vigilance of Lord Brougham brought to light what appeared to be a new method of establishing a slave-trade. In the colony of British Guiana there had been an old law, which permitted the importation of labourers without restriction. In 1836 a law was passed by the governor and council of policy of the colony, with a view to regulate the relations between the labourers who should come to the colony under articles of indenture, and their employers. On being transmitted to England for approval, the plan was considered on the whole to be an improvement, and therefore it was sanctioned. An order in council was issued in March, 1837, giving assent to the act of the colonial legislature, but with several important alterations, and especially reducing the period of service from seven to three years, and prohibiting the introduction of labourers from Africa, or islands peopled chiefly by the African race. Shortly after these modifications of the law had been promulgated, an application was made for a different regulation, to be extended to individuals from the East Indies, who, it was said, could not be brought into the colony with any profit, unless the term of service was prolonged to five years. This was conceded by Lord Glenelg; and arrangements were made for the deportation of a class of Hindoos, called “Hill Coolies,” or Highland labourers, to British Guiana. This subject was brought forward by Lord Brougham on the 6th of March, who moved two resolutions in condemnation of the order in council of July. In his speech he asserted that twenty-five thousand Africans had been introduced into the Mauritius in defiance of the law; and predicted that they were about to expose to this infernal traffic the entire Asiatic coast. His lordship complained that no precautions had been taken to secure proper ships, provision, or accommodation for the labourers on their voyage. Lord Glenelg contended that Lord Brougham’s alarm was premature; that he had exaggerated the danger, and was urging ministers to present a “barrier to the circulation of voluntary labour.” The Duke of Wellington suggested that arrangements should be made for the superintendence of the embarkation of labourers by responsible persons; that the nature of the bargain made should be fully explained to the labourer; that provision should be made for his return, if he wished it, at the expiration of his period of service; and that persons should be appointed to go with them while on board, and on their landing, to see the due performance of their respective bargains by the masters and the workmen. Lord Melbourne said that Lord Brougham’s ardent imagination rendered him an unsafe guide in such matters; but he intimated that the Duke of Wellington’s suggestion should receive attention. His grace then said that he thought it unadvisable to divide upon Lord Brougham’s motion; and therefore he would move the previous question. On a division the previous question was carried by a large majority; and the original motion being put, was negatived.

The subject of slavery was introduced on the 29th of March in the house of commons, by Sir George Strickland, who moved the immediate abolition of negro apprenticeship. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pease, and supported by Dr. Lushington and Lord Howick. On the other hand, it was opposed by Sir George Grey, Sir Edward Sugden, Lord John Russell, and Mr. W. E. Gladstone; and on a division it was negatived by a majority of two hundred and sixty-nine to two hundred and five. An attempt was subsequently made by Sir Eardley Wilmot to obtain a resolution from the house in favour of immediate abolition. He succeeded, his motion being carried by a majority of ninety-six against ninety-three. Government, however, still expressed aversion to any alteration of the present system; and on the 28th of May Sir George Grey proposed and carried a resolution which virtually rescinded that of Sir Eardley Wilmot, by declaring that, in the opinion of the house, it was not advisable to adopt any proceeding for the purpose of giving effect to the resolution of the 26th of that month. Sir George Grey’s motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and fifty against one hundred and seventy-three.

Although slavery was still allowed to exist, yet two important bills connected with this subject passed the legislature this session. One of these was entitled “An act to amend the act for the abolition of slavery;” and it contained various provisions, giving further protection to the apprentices, and enforcing such regulations of the former act as had been disregarded by the planters. The second bill empowered her majesty in council to make rules for the government of the prisons in the West Indies; to appoint inspectors of prisons; to dismiss or suspend officers; and to determine on the fitness or unfitness of any place to be used for the purposes of penal confinement.

DEBATES ON THE IRISH POOR-LAW BILL—THE BILL CARRIED.

It will be remembered that the Irish poor-law bill had arrived at an advanced stage, last session, in the committee, and that many of its important clauses had been discussed and determined, when the demise of the crown put a stop to its further progress. The subject was renewed on the 1st of December, when the bill was read a first time. It was proposed that the house should go into committee on the 9th of February, on which day Mr. O’Connell moved, as an amendment, that it be committed that day six months. When the bill was last year before the house, he said he had addressed them at considerable length in opposition to it. At the same time he had avowed that he had not moral courage to take the course of direct opposition to the measure, although perfectly convinced of its injurious tendency. Since then he had grown both older and firmer; and he was now determined to take the sense of the house on the committal of the bill. He was opposed to the introduction of poor-laws into Ireland, at least so far as regarded able-bodied persons; it might induce them to abandon their habitual industry and economy, and prevent them from providing for the wants of age and supervening infirmity. Any such plan was calculated to diminish self-reliance, to paralyse industry, to decrease economy, and, above all, to damp and extinguish the kindly and generous feelings of nature. He further objected to the bill, because it taxed the occupiers of lands, and involved many difficulties of apportionment between his landlord and himself: it would be a constant source of litigation. Besides, he contended that the mode in which the poor-law was proposed to be carried into effect, was not calculated to benefit Ireland: and he enlarged on the poverty of the people in general, in order to show that they ought not to be called upon to endure taxation to the amount of another million. Messrs. Shaw, W. S. O’Brien, Lucas, and Redington supported the bill, though they all thought that many of its details were objectionable. Mr. O. Gore supported Mr. O’Connell’s amendment, he objecting to the workhouse system as prejudicial to the best habits and feelings of the Irish. Other members, as Messrs. Barron, Young, and Litton, supported the measure; while others, as Mr. J. Gibson and Sir F. French, opposed it. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy-seven against twenty-five.

The house went into committee on the 12th of February. The third reading of the bill came on on the 30th of April, when Mr. O’Connell again endeavoured to arrest its progress. His opposition, however, was bootless: it passed the house of commons by a majority of two hundred and thirty-four against fifty-nine.

MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE APPROPRIATION CLAUSE—MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR SETTLING THE TITHE QUESTION.

On the 14th of May Sir Thomas Acland moved for the repeal of the appropriation clause. Lord John Russell had previously given notice that he would bring forward his resolutions concerning Irish tithes; and in moving that the speaker should leave the chair, the noble lord said that it had been his original intention to refrain from saying a single word, and to reserve his remarks to the time when the house should go into committee. It had pleased the gentlemen opposite, however, to give notice that they meant to interpose another question in order to raise a debate, and produce a division, before allowing the resolutions to be considered in committee. He should consider the proposition made by Sir Thomas Acland in two points of view; with reference to its object of producing discord and bitterness of feeling in the house, and how far such a course was conformable to the professions made by gentlemen opposite with respect to the Irish church. After descanting at considerable length on the subject of the alliance of the church and state generally, and the small influence which the Irish church exercised over the people, the noble lord went on to unfold his scheme. The existing tithe-composition, he said, would be converted into a rent-charge at the rate of £70 for every £100; and he proposed that the rent-charge should, with a saving of existing interests, be redeemed by the government at the rate of sixteen years’ purchase on the full sum of £100. The money received in redemption of the rent-charge he proposed should be invested in land, or in such other way as the ecclesiastical commissioners should advise; and the rent-charges themselves, when purchased, should go towards a fund, from which £160,000 should be paid yearly to the constabulary force of Ireland; £20,000 to the Dublin police; £70,000 to the expense of criminal informations; and £100,000 for the purposes of education, instead of the £50,000 now voted annually for that purpose; any surplus was to be applied to charitable purposes. After developing his plan, Lord John Russell descanted on the obstinacy and exorbitance of the clergy, and then attacked Sir T. Acland’s motion. He commenced this part of his speech by quoting the Duke of Wellington’s declared desire to see the Irish questions brought to a settlement, contending that the present motion was not in accordance with that declaration. With respect to the principle of the appropriation resolutions, his opinion was unaltered: it was a wise and just principle, and he could not consent to its reversal: it would imply a stigma upon ministers which he could not endure. Sir Thomas Acland, however, rose to move that the resolutions of the 7th and 8th of April, 1835, should be read; and after addressing the house at considerable length, he further moved that they should be rescinded. The motion was seconded by Sir Eardley Wilmot. After a long speech from Lord Stanley, and a few words from Lord Morpeth in defence of government, the house was adjourned till the following day, when Mr. Litton renewed the discussion by delivering a speech in favour of Sir T. Acland’s amendment. Messrs. Young, Laseelles, Bennett, and Lord Sandon also supported it; while Messrs. Redington and Townley opposed it. Mr. O’Connell remarked that the real question before the house was, how should Ireland be governed? This was the question that had been under discussion for seven hundred years. Should Ireland, he asked, be governed by a section? A loud shout interrupted the speaker, and in the midst of continued uproar, he continued thus:—“I thank you for that shriek. Many a shout of insolent domination, despicable and contemptible as it is, have I heard against my country.”—[Here the speaker interfered]—“Let them shout; it is a senseless yell—the spirit of a party. Ireland will hear their shrieks. They may want us again. What would Waterloo have been if we had not been there? I ask not that question for the renowned commander-in-chief, who is himself an Irishman, but for the hardy soldiery of Ireland, who fought the battle for him. I say again, that is the question.” In conclusion, Mr. O’Connell admitted that the ministerial plan did not go far enough, but he was ready to accede to it for the sake of an amicable arrangement. Sir Robert Peel and other members addressed the house, a discussion ensued, when Sir Thomas Acland’s motion was lost by a majority of three hundred and seventeen against two hundred and ninety-eight. On the following day Lord John Russell gave the house distinctly to understand that the tithe measure would solely consist of a proposition to the effect that the composition then existing should be converted into a rent-charge.

COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS UPON THE IRISH MUNICIPAL BILL—THE BILL REJECTED, ETC.

On the 29th of May Lord John Russell moved that the house should go into committee on the Irish municipal corporation bill. Sir Robert Peel then rose and stated his views and intentions with respect to the two great Irish questions.

The consideration of the subject was renewed on the 1st of June, when, the house being in committee, Mr. Shaw moved that schedules A and B should be consolidated, so that there should be but two schedules instead of three; the first to contain the towns to which corporations were to be given with an uniform ten-pound franchise; and the second to contain those in which the majority of the ten-pound householders might, according to their option, be incorporated. Mr. Shaw further proposed that Sir Robert Peel’s mode of estimating the qualification of electors should be adopted. Lord John Russell consented to that part of the proposition which regarded the distribution of towns to be incorporated, but at the same time intimated that government considered an uniform ten-pound franchise too high a qualification. On this point, indeed, the two parties were at issue, for Lord John Russell proposed a five-pound assessment as the qualification, while Sir Robert Peel advocated the ten-pound assessment. On the 11th of June Sir Robert moved to substitute the latter for the former sum; but on a division it was negatived by a majority of two hundred and eighty-six against two hundred and sixty-six. The bill came on for the third reading on the 25th of June, when Lord Francis Egerton moved that it should be read that day three months; but on a division the bill passed by a majority of one hundred and sixty-nine against one hundred and thirty-four.

The bill came under deliberation in the house of lords on the 12th of July, and it was read a third time on the 27th of the same month. The lords, however, had, on the motion of Lord Lyndhurst, substituted the ten-pound for the five-pound franchise, and had also made further alterations in the bill at the instigation of the same noble lord. When the bill in its amended shape came under the consideration of the house of commons on the 2nd of August, Lord John Russell entered into a detailed examination of these amendments. In order to settle the question of the franchise, he proposed that a rated house of eight pounds rent should confer it; and he carried this by a majority of one hundred and sixty-nine against one hundred and fifty-four. A variety of alterations were then introduced into the other amendments of the lords, and the bill was once more sent up to that house. A conference took place, but with no effect, and the matter ended by Lord John Russell moving in the house of commons that “the lords’ amendments should be further considered that day three months.” The bill, therefore, was again laid aside, and that for the most part from a difference of a pound or two in the qualification. The great principle of granting popular corporations to the Irish towns was conceded by the Conservatives; but they would not overlook the trifling difference contested by them and their opponents in the qualification.

THE CORONATION.

The coronation of Queen Victoria took place on the 28th of June. The principal novel feature of this august ceremony consisted in the substitution of a procession through the streets of London for the banquet in Westminster-hall. The result of this change justified the departure from an ancient usage. The people of all ages, sexes, conditions, professions, arts, and trades assembled on that day to greet their youthful sovereign. The ceremony was conducted with great harmony: happiness and cheerful good humour prevailed among the enormous multitude which thronged the streets; and courtesy and self-restraint were everywhere conspicuous. The coronation was succeeded by a series of fetes and banquets, and many weeks elapsed before the metropolis had ceased to hold festivals in its remembrance. In a word, the utmost enthusiasm for the youthful sovereign prevailed on every hand, and gave promise of a happy and glorious reign.

It was stated in the house of commons shortly after the coronation that the expenses incurred for the coronation of George IV. were £243,000, and that the expenses incurred for that of his successor did not exceed £50,000. On the present occasion the charges amounted to about £70,000, and the chancellor of the exchequer, in explaining the cause of this excess, said, that it was in no respect occasioned by any portion of the ceremony as regarded the sovereign, but for enabling the people to participate in the national festivity. The public, he continued, had voluntarily paid for seats commanding a view of the procession not less than £200,000; and four hundred thousand persons had visited London for the purpose of witnessing the ceremony. He added:—“Never was there given to a sovereign, or to a country, a more exalted proof of good conduct and discretion, than was afforded by the assembled multitude on this occasion.”

DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

On the 2nd of July the house of commons proceeded to take Lord John Russell’s tithe resolutions into consideration. On the motion for going into committee, Mr. Ward condemned ministers for abandoning the appropriation principle, and moved a series of resolutions for the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Irish church to the moral and religious education of all classes. Mr. Hawes seconded and Mr. Hume supported the motion. Mr. O’Connell, however, opposed it, contending that it led to a deception and delusion: it offered to the Irish people something as the purchase-money of a tithe bill, which bill they had refused unanimously to take. Their determination was not to pay tithe; and he required that provision should be made for the established church of Ireland out of the consolidated fund, and that the tithe fund should be applied to the maintenance of peace in the country. By converting tithes into a rent-charge, they would turn landlords into tithe proprietors; and would further throw many landlords into the ranks of White-boys. Mr. Harvey said that three years ago he was denounced by Mr. O’Connell for not supporting the motion which his learned friend was now opposing. On a division Mr. Ward’s motion was rejected by two hundred and seventy against forty-six. On the house going into committee, Mr. Shaw moved, as an amendment, that twenty-five instead of thirty per cent, should be substituted. This amendment was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-eight against one hundred and sixty-seven.

In a preceding year one million sterling had been voted by parliament for the relief of tithe-owners who had been unable to pay their dues; and out of this sum they had by this time actually received £640,000. At the time of the grant it was intended that the advances should be repaid as soon as the tenants should pay up their arrears. That event was not likely to happen; for, since the grant had been made, a new arrear of tithes had accrued. It was now generally agreed that repayment of the money advanced should not be required; but it became a question how far the fresh arrears were to be settled. Sir Robert Peel suggested that a commission should be appointed to ascertain the entire amount of the tithe, and the nature of each particular case; and that in proportion to that amount, and with due regard to individual circumstances, the sum remaining of the million not yet advanced should be distributed among the respective tithe-owners in purchase of their interests. According to his plan, if a landlord owned tithe, he was not to be included in the proposition; but where the debtors were occupying tenants, there tithe-owners were to have the option of enforcing their claims, or of accepting their proportion of the fund, and exonerating their debtors: government was also to have the right of proceeding against the tenant at their option. This proposition was favourably received; and, on July 16th, Lord John Russell, when the house resumed the consideration of the bill in committee, adopted it with some slight modifications. On the 26th of July the bill came on for the third reading. Mr. D. Browne moved, that the bill be read that day six months; in doing which he contended for a total abolition of tithes. On a division the bill was carried by a majority of one hundred and forty-eight against thirty; and thus terminated the contests concerning “the appropriation clause.” The adoption of it had assisted the Whigs in their return to power; and the sacrifice of it enabled them to maintain office.

Lord Melbourne brought the Irish tithe-bill before the house of lords on the 3rd of August. After descanting on the million loan and the arrears, his lordship remarked that it was obvious, unless they closed up all questions with reference to arrears, they would not be giving the measure fair play. This bill directed the lord lieutenant to remit to the clergy the instalments due from them in respect of the loan; and the residue of the million was to be applied in satisfaction of the arrears, according to the claims of the spiritual tithe-owners, which had been accruing during the last four years. Nothing was said of the “appropriation clause” by his lordship: on which Lord Brougham remarked:—“I had not looked to see the day when appropriation should be given to the winds, as if the thing had never been talked of—as if it never had been the means of seating one ministry and unseating another.”

The bill was read a third time on the 9th of August, Lord Clancarty alone raising a dissentient voice.

THE IRISH POOR-LAW BILL CARRIED IN THE LORDS.

On the 21st of May Lord Melbourne moved the second reading of the Irish poor-law bill in the lords. The motion was opposed by Earl Fitzwilliam, who said that he was opposed to the whole principle of poor-laws. As for the present bill, he said, it could never be carried into effect; it was not an Irish bill, nor was it a bill desired either by the landed interests, the middling gentry, or the poorest classes of Ireland. The Marquis of Londonderry also opposed the bill; while the Duke of Wellington recommended their lordships to give it a second reading, with a view of amending it in committee. Lord Lyndhurst, having adverted to the unpopularity of the bill in Ireland, and cautioned their lordships against setting themselves up as better judges than the Irish people themselves of what was best calculated to promote the interests of that nation, said he should not object to a trial of the bill, provided he thought that they would, in the event of failure, return to their original situation. His lordship then stated his various objections to the proposed bill; but, in conclusion, intimated his intention of voting for the second reading, in the hope that it might be brought into a better state in committee. The Marquis of Clanricarde, Lord Brougham, and the Marquis of Westmeath opposed the bill; and Lord Radnor and the Earl of Devon supported it. On a division the second reading was carried by a majority of one hundred and forty-nine against twenty. In committee, Earl Fitzwilliam moved an am end-mend to the forty-first clause, by which he limited the relief under the bill to age, bodily infirmity, &c.; and he was supported by Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci, who contended that the operations of the bill would be mischievous; but it was not carried. On the 31st the latter noble lord moved another amendment, empowering the guardians to relieve in poor-houses “all destitute persons who are either incurably lame, or blind, or sick, or labouring under permanent bodily infirmity;” also all orphan children left in a state of destitution. Ministers, however, succeeded in carrying the original clause of the bill by a majority of one hundred and seven to forty-one. Subsequently some amendments were made in the minor details of the bill, and it was read a third time on the 9th of July, and carried by a majority of ninety-three against thirty-one. The momentous experiment, therefore, of introducing a poor-law into a country where the people were everywhere opposed to it was to be tried.

PROJECTED FORMATION OF A COLONY IN NEW ZEALAND, ETC.

At this period an association had been formed for the purpose of colonizing New Zealand, under certain grants of territory which had been obtained from the native authorities. During this session an application for a parliamentary sanction to the undertaking was made, and Mr. F. Baring, on the 23rd of June, moved the second reading of a bill to establish the said colony. Sir George Grey opposed the motion. The bill was also opposed by Sir Walter James, Lord Sandon, and Messrs. Goulbourn and Pease, while Messrs. Hutt and P. Howard pointed out the advantages which would accrue to Great Britain from the measure. The bill was rejected by a majority of ninety-two against thirty-two.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ETC.

The navy estimates were presented to the house of commons on the 5th of March, when Mr. C. Wood moved a resolution to the effect, that there be employed in the fleet for the next thirteen lunar months, ending on the 31st of March, 1839, 33,665 men including 2,000 boys and 9,000 marines. After some opposition, this motion was agreed to; as was another, made by Lord Howick, on the 12th of the same month, to the effect that 89,305 men should be raised for her majesty’s land-forces. The ordnance estimates were moved by Sir Hussey Vivian on the 27th of April, and these, likewise, were granted. The chancellor of the exchequer presented his financial statement on the 18th of May, when it appeared that the past year had been one of increased expenditure and diminished receipt. The estimate of revenue, he said, had amounted to £47,240,000, while the actual income did not exceed £46,090,000. The estimate of expenditure had been £47,873,000, and the actual expenditure £47,519,000; so that there existed a deficiency of £1,428,000. But, continued Mr. Rice, if the house would compare the income and expenditure of the two years 1836 and 1837, they would find a surplus of income; and he showed that, taking these two years together, and comparing the anticipation with the actual results, there was no deficiency. The right honourable gentleman proceeded to say that he calculated the income of the next year would be £47,271,803, and the expenditure £47,479,000. Here, also, would be a deficiency; and the question arose, how was this deficiency to be met? There was no ground for considering it permanent; and he should therefore propose to take the course adopted by parliament on former similar occasions. In 1827 Mr. Canning found himself with a deficiency of £2,900,000, and he met it by a resort to a corresponding issue of exchequer-bills. Mr. Spring Rice intimated that he should follow the same course, and should ask for a vote of credit to the extent of a few hundred thousand pounds only.

MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE CORN-LAWS.

On the 15th of March Mr. Villiers moved for a committee of the whole house to consider the act of 9 George IV. c. 60, relating to the importation of corn. In his speech he remarked that the purpose and principle of the corn-laws were protection to the landed interest. It was alleged that the British farmers could not compete with the foreign grower without protection. He considered this principle indefinite and unjust. The motion was seconded by Sir William Molesworth, who drew a gloomy picture of the operation of the corn-laws. Through them, he said, there was an excess of farmers without farm, shopkeepers without customers, lawyers without briefs, clergymen without cure of souls, doctors without patients, sailors and soldiers without employment; besides shoals of architects, painters, surveyors, tutors, clerks, and others. All these classes were uneasy, and the victims of competition. The corn-laws had further the effect of producing great immorality: people either could not marry, or were obliged to many late in life, and consequently there was an excess of unmarried women! Hence immorality prevailed, and every foreigner who visited the land was shocked at the exhibition of profligacy in the streets. Only a few members supported the motion, which was consequently lost.

On a subsequent evening Colonel Seale proposed that foreign corn in this country should, under certain restrictions, be permitted to be ground while in bond, and exported, security being given for its exportation. The object of this measure was to enable merchants trading to foreign countries, and shipowners, to lay in their supplies in the ports of the United Kingdom, instead of being compelled to obtain them, as at present, from the Baltic. The Marquis of Chandos contended that this measure would repeal the corn-laws: extensive frauds would take place, and a great alteration ensue in the price of corn. On the other hand, Messrs. Warburton and Poulett Thomson argued that the agricultural interest would not suffer from it in the least degree. The latter said that no fraud could take place, and he entered into details to show that the preservation of the whole revenue of the country depended upon the security afforded by the bonded warehouses. Corn could not be smuggled out of them more easily than sugar and tobacco, &c., on which much higher duties were payable. After hearing these statements of Mr. Thomson, several members intimated their disposition to make a concession upon so immaterial a point. Colonel Seale’s motion was carried by a majority of one hundred and twenty-seven against ninety-two, but the bill was, notwithstanding, thrown out on the second reading, by a majority of two hundred and twenty against one hundred and fifty.

VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LAW.

An important alteration in the law took place this session, in the abolition of imprisonment for debt on mesne process. Public attention had been for some time directed to this subject; and during last session a bill passed the house of commons with reference to it, but at too late a period to admit of its discussion in the upper house. On the 5th of December the lord-chancellor brought the subject before the lords, by moving the second reading of a similar bill. Many of the details of the bill, however, were thought to be so defective, that it was referred to the consideration of a select committee. The lord-chancellor again presented his bill, as altered and amended by the committee, on the 12th of June. In his exposition of the measure, his lordship stated that it would empower creditors to get possession of various descriptions of property, which were at present exempt from execution. Thus the bill would authorize the sheriff to seize cash, bank-notes, and bills of exchange; and, under the authority of a judge’s order, and with certain restrictions, stock in the public funds would be available to the creditor. These and similar provisions were framed for the purpose of doing justice to the creditor, by enabling him, if possible, to obtain payment out of his debtor’s property. Having effected this object it seemed but right to abolish imprisonment on mesne process. Still, to prevent fraud, it was necessary to secure to the creditor the right of seizing the debtor’s person in certain cases. The bill, moreover, would authorize a judge, on the creditor’s application, to issue a warrant to restrain a fraudulent debtor from leaving the country before he had surrendered his property. Lords Brougham and Abingdon commended the measure as far as it went; but they still thought it incomplete. The bill was read a third time and passed; and after some minor alterations had been introduced in it by the commons, it finally became law. Another useful act passed during this session was one which facilitated the recovery of possession of tenements after the determination of the tenancy. This bill empowered any two justices at petty-sessions, in certain cases, and after proof given of the determination of the tenancy, and of the refusal of the tenant to render possession, to issue their warrant to the peace-officers of the place, directing them to enter, by force, if needful, upon the premises unlawfully held over, and to give possession of the same to the landlord or to his agent; such entry to be made not less than twenty, and not more than thirty days from the date of the warrant. The provisions of this bill, however, are confined to premises held at will, or for less than a term of seven years, and which are let for less than £20 per annum, without the reservation of a fine.

In the course of this session, a bill for securing to authors, in certain cases, the benefit of international copyright passed the legislature, and which enabled her majesty in council to direct that the authors of books published abroad shall have a copyright here, provided there be a reciprocal protection in favour of this country in the state in which such publications first make their appearance.

A SELECT COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO THE OPERATION OF THE POOR-LAWS.

During the past and the present year the New Poor-law was exposed to a severe trial. Distress, from a severe winter and the high price of corn, abounded on every hand, while in various parts of the country local and temporary causes operated unfavourably to the labourer. Under these circumstances, the New Poor-law encountered great opposition, and this appeared to be becoming progressively formidable. In the northern parts of the country, indeed, Tories, Whigs, and Radicals alike arrayed themselves against it, all agreeing to seek its entire abolition. The subject had been introduced into the commons as early as the 27th of November of the past year, when Lord John Russell moved for a select committee to inquire into the operation of the New Poor-law. This afforded, however, but little satisfaction to the opponents of the measure; and on the 20th of February Mr. Fielden moved for a repeal of the act itself. He was seconded by Mr. Wakley; and, in the course of the evening, a discussion ensued, in which many members took part. Those who spoke generally concurred in the impolicy of taking any steps in the question until the committee should have made its report. Sir Robert Peel bore testimony to the merits of the bill; remarking that, considering the magnitude of the experiment, which had been but four years under trial, it was as satisfactory as any man could expect. On a division, the motion was rejected by a majority of three hundred and nine against seventeen.

The commissioners made their report on the 4th of August. It had been proposed to authorize the guardians to relieve the families of labourers, by taking one or more of their children into the workhouse. The report stated, “that in the practical application of this exception, it would be difficult to avoid the establishment of a system similar in principle to the scale system; i. e. a regular allowance, in addition to the labourer’s earnings, depending on the number of his children and the rate of wages.” It had further been proposed to obviate the hardship of obliging a man to part with his cottage and furniture, and take up his abode, with his family, in the workhouse, by admitting the head of the family only into that establishment, and leaving his family at home. The report stated an objection to this proposal thus:—“The small degree of inconvenience sustained by the labourer by a temporary sojourn in the workhouse, whilst his wife and family remain at home, ceases altogether to have the effect upon the employer which is produced by the strict workhouse system; namely, the creating a great reluctance, on his part, to lose temporarily the services of the labourer, lest he should find it impossible to regain them; and a desire so to arrange the work of his farm, as to afford employment, during the unfavourable part of the season, to those upon whose assistance he must rely for the necessary services during the more active periods of the year.” The report proceeded to notice other particulars of the system, as the migration of families from the southern to the northern counties; and the emigration of others to the Australian colonies. It remarked, that the most important and characteristic circumstance of the last twelve months had been the extreme severity of a long winter, and the continuance of the interruption to manufacturing industry which had commenced in 1836. From this circumstance the guardians of various unions had been induced to give out-door relief to able-bodied male paupers, but the commissioners were of opinion that, with few exceptions, it might have been safely withheld.

COMBINATIONS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.

For some years combinations of workmen for the purpose of regulating the rate of wages, and other matters connected with the employment of labour, had been permitted by law to exist. At this time, however, these confederacies had become formidable. “Strikes” were constantly recurring, so that the masters lay at the mercy of the operatives. Thus at Ashton fifty-two mills and thirty thousand persons were thrown out of work, by the “strike” of three thousand “coarse spinners,” who could clear at the time about thirty shillings per week; and at Manchester one thousand “fine spinners” struck work, because the masters would not pay them more than thirty-five shillings per week. At Glasgow, where the cotton-spinners had been long noted for the violent and arbitrary proceedings of their confederacy, five individuals connected with their body were taken up, charged with murder, attempts at arson, and other grave offences of a similar character. On their trial, the evidence disclosed some revolting details of the practices and formidable organization of the cotton-spinners’ union of Glasgow; but the jury found the prisoners guilty of the minor charges only, and they were transported for seven years. There was much in these judicial proceedings that, in the opinion of Lord Brougham and Mr. Wakley, required correction, and accordingly they brought the subject under the consideration of parliament, each in their respective spheres.

The subject was introduced by Mr. Wakley in the house of commons, by moving for a select committee to inquire into the constitution, practices, and effects of the association of operative cotton-spinners in Glasgow and its neighbourhood. Mr. O’Connell moved, by way of amendment, for a select committee to inquire into trades’ unions and combinations generally, in the United Kingdom. He remarked that there was no tyranny equal to that which was exercised by the trades’ unionists in Dublin. He had in vain wished to convince those people of the wickedness and impolicy of their proceedings. Hour after hour had he had interviews with the deputation from the various trades, and had seldom met with men of more ability, information, or skill, in putting forward their own views. He had also challenged discussion, and two assemblies had been held for that purpose; but the workmen had concerted interruption, and they could not proceed in the business of the day. He could not be heard, and they expressed their determination to persist in their system of outrage. Mr. O’Connell proceeded to detail some of the more prominent regulations of the combination. One of their rules was to limit the number of apprentices; another prescribed a minimum rate of wages, so that the best workmen received no more than the worst; and by a third the masters were deprived of all freedom in their power of selecting workmen. The honourable gentleman then proceeded to relate some instances of the prejudicial effects of combination on the manufacturing industry of the country; and he concluded by adverting to the murders and outrages committed by stipendiary assassins acting under the authority of the unions, and by asserting that he had no wish to re-enact the old combination laws. Some combinations were even meritorious: his aim would be to separate unions of this kind from those of a pernicious character. The chancellor of the exchequer paid some just compliments to Mr. O’Connell for the course he had pursued with respect to this subject, and said that he proposed a second amendment, which did not materially differ from that of the member for Dublin. He moved for a select committee to inquire into the operation of the 6th of George IV., and into the general constitution of trades’ unions, and also the combinations of workmen and masters in the United Kingdom. Mr. Wakley expressed himself satisfied to leave the question in the hands of her majesty’s ministers, and the chancellor of the exchequer’s motion was agreed to without a division.

JOHN THOM. ALIAS SIR WILLIAM COURTENAY.

A few years back an individual of the name of John Nicholls Thorn left his home in Cornwall, and went into the county of Kent. Here he exchanged his name for the more euphonious one of Sir William Courtenay, Knight of Malta, and he commenced a practice of parading his naturally commanding person before the admiring people, clad in rich costumes, and pouring forth streams of exciting and persuasive eloquence. Attracted by his romantic appearance, the populace flocked round him with the wildest enthusiasm; and even the superior classes of society, furnished him with partizans. In 1833 he became a candidate for the representation of the city of Canterbury, and he succeeded so far as to poll nine hundred and fifty votes. Not long after, however, he was found to be implicated in a transaction which resulted in his conviction for perjury, and he was sentenced to six years’ transportation. Decided symptoms of insanity having exhibited themselves, instead of being sent on board the hulks, in conformity with the act 9th George IV., he was removed from Maidstone gaol to the county lunatic asylum. He remained here four years, and at the expiration of that period, Lord John Russell, in virtue of a power conferred on him as secretary of state by the same act, delivered him up to his friends upon their engaging to take care of him. His friends ill discharged their duty; for in 1838 John Thom reappeared in Kent, and this time under a higher title than that of baronet: he claimed to be, and the people acknowledged his pretensions as, another Messiah. The delusion led to the “Canterbury riots,” in which a constable was shot by Thom himself, and Lieutenant Bennet was killed by some of his enthusiastic followers. Thom on his trial was proved to be of unsound mind; and several of his followers were sentenced to be transported, some for life, and others for longer or shorter periods of time, according to the parts they had acted in the tragical scene.

COMMITTEE ON CHURCH LANDS.

It has been seen in a former page that a committee had been appointed to ascertain the probable amount of any increased value which might be obtained by an improved management of church property. On the 3rd of May Lord John Russell proposed the reappointment of this committee. He estimated the revenue of the church of England at £3,439,767, and he calculated this income would admit of considerable increase. With respect to the disposal of such additional revenue, when obtained, his lordship said that both himself and colleagues held it as a fixed principle that it ought to be devoted to a purpose clearly and intimately connected with the church. Many honourable members were of opinion that such a fund should be applied to the education of the people: government would prefer to dedicate it to the repairs of the fabric of the church itself. His lordship then entered into details to show that the present system of managing church property was improvident and unsatisfactory; and that the funds of the church were often disposed of in a way contrary to their original purposes, and not desirable for the spiritual interests of the country. By proper arrangements he expected that an annual surplus of £300,000 might be secured. The motion was opposed by Mr. Liddell, who, in moving a direct negative to it, observed that government had been stimulated to stir this “mischievous question, and unsettle men’s minds and properties by the clamour of persons hostile to the church.” The church of Durham, he said, was the great object of their appetency. It certainly had rich possessions, but then its charities were in proportion. It had, moreover, crying wants: many of its cures were underpaid, and many new churches were requisite, for which there were no adequate means of endowment. The honourable gentleman concluded by saying, that should the motion for a committee be carried, he would further move the addition to it of the following words:—“with a view of applying such amount to the gradual diminution of the evils which flow from the deficiency in the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence by ministers of the established church.” The original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy-seven against two hundred and forty-one; and Mr. Liddell’s second amendment was lost by a majority of two hundred and sixty-five against two hundred and fifty-four.

ACT FOR ABOLISHING PLURALITIES, ETC.

During this session an act was passed for “abridging pluralities,” and for making better provision for the residence of the clergy. This bill enacts that no person holding more benefices than one shall accept and hold any cathedral preferment or other benefice; and that no person holding preferment in one cathedral shall hold any in another, with certain exceptions in favour of archdeacons. The bill further enacts that two benefices are not to be enjoyed together, unless within ten miles of each other, nor if the population of the one exceeds three thousand, or the joint revenue £1,000, unless the yearly value of the one fall short of £150, while the population exceeds two thousand persons; in which case the bishop of the diocese may authorize the two to be held jointly, though at the same time it was made necessary to obtain a dispensation from the Archbishop of Canterbury. By another clause of the bill any spiritual person in the possession of preferment is prohibited from farming more than eighty acres of land without the consent of his diocesan, and from engaging in any trade, unless in cases where the number of partners exceed six, or where the share in a business may devolve upon the individual by operation of law; but in no case may such person carry on or manage trade personally. The bill finally empowers the bishops to grant dispensations to their clergy from residing in the parsonage-houses when unfit to be occupied, provided that the residence selected be within a certain distance of the cure, and further enumerates a variety of other instances in which the bishops may grant licences for non-residence.

During this session also, in consequence of a recent decision in the court of exchequer, that it was unlawful for a clergyman to be a member of a joint-stock company, an act was passed, altering the law on that head. In 1817, an act had been passed prohibiting all spiritual persons from engaging in any trade for gain or profit, and imposing a penalty upon transgressors of the law. It also declared the acts of any partnership into which such spiritual person had been introduced to be null and void.

On the 22nd of February the Earl of Ripon announced to the house of lords that the ecclesiastical commissioners had resolved to recommend the continuance of the bishopric of Sodor and Man as a separate see, and not to unite it with the diocese of Carlisle, as had been proposed. During this session, therefore, a bill was passed for continuing the see upon its original footing.

THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT.

On the 1st of December Lord Brougham brought the subject of national education under the consideration of the house of lords. His lordship’s plan was disclosed in two bills, corresponding with that which he had brought forward in the preceding session, and which were only separated for the sake of convenience. The measure of Lord Brougham seems to have been conceived in an enlightened spirit, and its outline exhibits many excellent features; but it was clear that there would be great difficulty in carrying out its details. The bill was generally approved of, and was read a first time, but it did not come again under the consideration of parliament during this session.

THE QUESTION OF CANADA RENEWED.

While parliament was sitting, Lord Durham sailed for his seat of government in Canada; and news arrived of his first acts in that province. Before his lordship had sailed, however, attacks were made upon him by the opposition, although they had exercised so much forbearance towards him at the outset of his mission.

The main attack on Lord Durham was opened in the house of lords on the 30th of July. Of the many important matters which Lord Durham found on his arrival in Canada unsettled, the disposal of the state prisoners was “by far the most delicate and dangerous.” This difficulty was increased by the restrictions which the home-government had thought it expedient to impose upon the governor-in-chief. These restrictions were contained in a letter written by Lord Glenelg, and were to this effect:—“From the very commencement of the late disturbances it has been, as your lordship is aware, the earnest desire of the government, that the utmost lenity compatible with the public safety should be exercised towards the insurgents. This is a principle inculcated in my various despatches to the authorities of Lower and Upper Canada, and it is a principle supported by considerations, not only of humanity, which cannot be in such cases admitted as the exclusive test of right conduct, but also of true policy, in reference to the well-being of the Canadas. You will, I am persuaded, enter into the views of the government on this subject; and in order to enable you to act with promptitude in this respect, you are relieved from the restrictions by which your predecessors were prevented, in case of treason, from giving an absolute pardon, or granting more than a respite, till the royal pleasure should be known. The power thus entrusted to you, of granting an amnesty or pardon in all cases, should, in the opinion of her majesty’s government, be exercised largely, but not entirely without exception. Independently of persons committed on charges of murder, to whose cases I have referred in my despatch of the 19th of March to Sir J. Colborne, as exceptions to the class of cases fit to be included in an amnesty, there must probably among the prisoners be some flagrant and prominent cases of delinquency, which it would not be just or advisable to comprehend in the general lenity. These cases it will be for you to select, in order that they may be brought to trial. In the constitution of the tribunals before which these prisoners are to be arraigned, and in the conduct of these trials, her majesty’s government are, after full deliberations, satisfied that there should be no further deviation from the established mode of legal procedure, than was sanctioned in my despatch to Sir J. Colborne. You will, therefore, bring them to trial in the usual manner before the courts of justice, as at present constituted for the trial of criminal offences. By the verdict of the ordinary juries, the fate of the prisoners must be decided.... Except in cases of murder, capital punishments should be avoided.” In dealing with this difficult subject Lord Durham availed himself of the assistance of his special council, the members of which were Vice-admiral Sir Charles Paget, Major-general Sir James Macdonnell, Colonel Couper, the governor’s military secretary, and principal aide-de-camp, Colonel Grey, and Mr. Charles Buller. The council met on the 18th of June; but it was not for the purposes of consultation that Lord Durham convened his board, for on the very day on which they were summoned to meet, appeared the celebrated ordinance, by which Lord Brougham not only accomplished his fall, but contrived that all the odium of the transaction should attach to the ministers themselves The nature of this ordinance will be clearly seen in the following debates which took place in both houses of parliament.

On the day before mentioned (30th July), when the attack was opened on Lord Durham in the upper house, Lord Brougham called the attention of the peers to the ordinance which had been passed by the noble governor of Canada, asserting that if carried into effect it would involve the crime of murder, the whole proceeding being at variance with law. Seven days after, Lord Brougham renewed the attack. No power, he said, to inflict pains and penalties upon individuals who had not been brought to trial, which that ordinance usurped, was conferred upon Lord Durham. He might make general laws for the good government of the colony, but subject to an exception which restrained him from altering any act of the British parliament. The ordinance in question contravened the provisions of the act 7th William III. “for the trial of treasonable offences;” and if Lord Durham had the power of dispensing with that act, he might condemn in every case as traitors men against whom no witnesses had been examined, and into whose alleged offences no inquiry had been made. Lord Glenelg remarked that Lord Durham had been placed in a situation of extreme difficulty: he had been solicited for extreme punishments on the one hand, and for a complete amnesty on the other; he had adopted a middle course, and when his decision was announced, it gave general satisfaction. Lord Brougham replied, that the noble earl might have accomplished all he was desirous of doing without a breach of the law. If he had said to parties accused or suspected, “I won’t bring you to trial, if you conduct yourselves properly,” he would have acted in a legal manner; but instead of doing this, he said, “I shall send you to Bermuda; and if you leave that island, I declare you guilty of high-treason.” Lord Melbourne deprecated such rigid criticism. He owned that the clause in the ordinance which related to Bermuda was an error on the part of Lord Durham, but he declared his belief that the whole of the remainder was perfectly legal, and warranted by the powers which parliament had committed to the noble governor of Canada. On the other hand Lord Ellenborough contended that all the penal provisions of the ordinance were illegal, and that the whole transaction was alien from the spirit of British jurisprudence. The Duke of Wellington said that he did not approve of the constant attacks on Lord Durham; but he really thought that steps should be taken to set the government of Canada right on proceedings which appeared to be illegal. Lord Brougham followed up the course he had taken on the following night by introducing a bill “for declaring the true intent and meaning of an act passed in the present session of parliament, intituled ‘An act to make temporary provisions for the government of Lower Canada,’ and for indemnifying those who have issued or acted under a certain ordinance made under colour of the said act.” This bill was read a first time in silence, but on the second reading on the 9th of August, Lord Brougham, by way of preface, propounded certain “canons of policy” by which the administration of the government of Lower Canada, during the suspension of the constitution ought, in his opinion, to have been directed. The bill introduced by Lord Brougham was so loosely framed that it afforded Lord Glenelg fair occasion for criticism. He availed himself of this opportunity of encountering his adversary with some effect. In conclusion, Lord Glenelg observed that the bill before the house was not a mere declaratory act, but a new law restricting the powers which the act of that session had already conferred upon the governor of Canada. It would be inexpedient and extraordinary, if, having invested Lord Durham with plenary authority, they were suddenly to abridge the powers which he had been led to suppose he possessed. A warm and acrimonious debate was maintained by the Earl of Ripon, the Duke of Wellington, and other opposition peers on the one hand, and Lord Melbourne and the lord chancellor on the other. The two ex-chancellors made themselves very remarkable on this occasion, Lord Brougham manifesting the utmost excitement, and the most bitter personal hostility to Lord Durham, to whose instrumentality he attributed his being overlooked by Lord Melbourne in his cabinet arrangements. Lord Lyndhurst did the excellent qualities of Lord Durham justice, and displayed a calmness in debate which contrasted strikingly with the irritability and personalities of Lord Brougham. The debate brought forcibly to light the disposition of Lord Durham to carry matters with a high hand in his new government, and his deficiency in that wariness and prudence so essential to a chief governor. After a few remarks from Lord Brougham, the bill was read a second time by a majority of fifty-four against thirty-six. On the following day Lord Melbourne informed the house that ministers had resolved to advise the queen to disallow of the whole ordinance. It was with the deepest regret and alarm that they had taken this course; nor was it without the greatest apprehension of the consequences that they had come to this determination. His lordship then intimated his approval of the indemnity bill, and that he should in a future stage of the proceedings move a clause explanatory of Sir William Follett’s proviso. Lord Brougham commended ministers for their “judicious, wise, politic, and most virtuous resolution.” The Duke of Wellington was by no means inclined to sanction Lord Melbourne’s proposed explanation of the proviso: Sir John Colborne had acted under the law as it stood, and must have found it sufficient for the purpose. The Marquis of Lansdowne remarked, that if the noble lords opposite acquiesced in the mode in which Sir John Colborne had exercised his authority; if they admitted that he had not exceeded the law, Lord Melbourne’s proposed clause would be unnecessary. That gentleman had been permitted to pass an act of attainder, which had lain unnoticed on the table for six weeks. Ministers only claimed for Lord Durham the power which was conceded to his predecessor: he desired to know whether Sir John Colborne had acted in conformity with the law. Lord Brougham replied, that Lord Durham’s powers were coextensive with those of Sir John Colborne; but as to whether or not that officer had exceeded the limits of his authority, he begged to say that he did not feel himself at liberty to answer. It is quite clear, indeed, that no noble lord could have answered this question satisfactorily; for if Lord Durham had been guilty in passing an act of attainder, the same guilt must have attached to Sir John Colborne; and if the one had been pronounced innocent, the other must have shared in his innocence. This question, which was one of the greatest importance, however, was allowed to pass over; and in the course of the evening Lord Melbourne moved the insertion of his explanatory clause, which, after reciting the proviso, proceeded to declare, that it should not extend to prevent the governor and council from passing such laws as might be necessary for the safety of the province, or from providing for the punishment or detention of persons engaged in conspiracies against the government. By the results of this clause, in fact, and the discussions which followed, Lord Brougham’s bill was stripped of its declaratory character, and reduced to a mere act of indemnity to the parties concerned in the transportation and detention of the Bermuda prisoners. In this mutilated condition Lord Brougham moved the third reading of the bill, which he did with evident reluctance, inasmuch as he rightly considered that its chief value lay in its declaratory character. “As I have been accidentally mixed up with this business,” said his lordship, “I have no hesitation in moving the third reading of the bill, as it now stands, although quite sensible that I am making that motion on the part of her majesty’s government.” On this occasion the lord-chief-justice Denman spoke on the question for the first time. His objections to the ordinance were directed to a gross violation of the constitution. As to the indemnity, he was entirely opposed to it; the passing of such bills was one of the most unjustifiable practices of parliament. Publie functionaries might be justified by their good intentions in overstepping the law; but parliament had no right to say to the parties who had suffered by such excess of authority, “You can have no redress against those persons who have wronged you, because it is our pleasure to indemnify them.” “If indeed,” he continued, “parliament are of opinion that individuals, actuated by a good and upright intention, and only zealous for the public service, have broken the laws, let them indemnify those individuals out of the public purse, against the consequences of the legal proceedings that may be instituted; but let them not leave the injured party without a remedy.” The bill was finally read a third time, and passed in the lords.

Lord Brougham’s bill was introduced into the house of commons on the 13th of August, and read a first and second time without any discussion. On the following day, however, Lord John Russell brought the subject before the house. His lordship said it was his intention to submit to the house of commons a proposal which he made with extreme reluctance; namely, that they should assent to the bill as it came down from the lords without any amendment. He presumed that no objection would be made to the indemnity which it was the object of the bill to provide; and he then explained in what sense he understood the act for governing Canada. The discussion which ensued was similar in argument and spirit to the debates in the house of lords. The house went into committee on the bill. No amendments were introduced; and on the 15th of August Lord John Russell moved the third reading, which, after a short debate, was carried without a division.

QUEEN PROROGUES PARLIAMENT.

The queen prorogued parliament on the 16th of August. Being seated on the throne her majesty was addressed by the speaker of the house of commons on the subject of the suspension of the constitution of Lower Canada, and the Irish poor-law and tithe bills. The queen then gave the royal assent to a series of bills, after which she proceeded to read the speech. In the speech her majesty lamented that war still continued in Spain; adverted to the affairs of Canada; noticed the progress which had been made towards the entire abolition of negro-apprenticeship; made some approving observations on the attention which had been bestowed upon the amendment of the domestic institutions of the country; thanked the commons for providing for the expenses of her household, &c.; and expressed her satisfaction in having given her assent to a bill for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland. Her majesty concluded thus: “My lords and gentlemen,—The many useful measures which you have been able to consider, while the settlement of the civil list and the state of Canada demanded so much of your attention, are a satisfactory proof of your zeal for the public good. You are so well acquainted with the duties which now devolve upon you in your respective counties, that it is unnecessary to remind you of them, In the discharge of them you may securely rely upon my firm support; and it only remains to express an humble hope that Divine Providence may watch over us all, and prosper our united efforts for the welfare of our country.”

DISAFFECTION AMONG THE WORKING CLASSES.

During the autumn of this year a turbulent spirit displayed itself among the working classes in the manufacturing districts. Meetings were held in various quarters, and demagogues addressed the assembled multitudes in the most inflammatory language. The twofold cause of this disaffection was the poor-laws and the price of bread; and as a remedy for these evils the people were taught to ask for universal suffrage. A favourite practice with the parties to these transactions was to assemble by torchlight in the open air—a practice which gave a mystery to the meetings well calculated to strike the imagination of the vulgar, and which gave those whose employment did not admit of their being present in the daytime, an opportunity of attending them. The speeches delivered at these meetings have been well characterized as “furious nonsense;” but at the same time they were calculated to work mischief in the community. Happily, however, the Whigs were in office, and for their own interest’s sake they restrained these ebullitions. Had there been a Conservative government, possibly the danger might have been greater.

PROPOSED REDUCTION OF THE RATES OF POSTAGE.

At this time the question of an alteration in the rates of postage was beginning to occupy attention. A proposal was submitted to the country by Mr. Rowland Hill, for substituting a uniform rate of one penny upon every half-ounce, without any reference to distance. This scheme was loudly applauded by all classes of society; and the subject was referred to a committee of the house of commons. The report of this committee was, that the high rates of postage then in existence were extremely injurious to the community, interfering with moral and social improvement; restricting commercial enterprise; impairing general national prosperity; restraining the progress of art and science; circumscribing the operations of religious societies, and acting as a grievous tax upon the poor. The report further stated that the illicit conveyance of letters prevailed to a great extent, and was on the increase; that the law was impotent to arrest the practice; and that the only mode of effectually suppressing it would be to reduce the charges to the standard of the contraband carrier. The report recommended that, prior to the establishment of an uniform rate of one penny, a similar rate of twopence per half-ounce on inland general-post letters should be adopted at the rate of one penny with every additional half-ounce, with certain exceptions. It further suggested that as soon as the revenue would bear a large temporary reduction, it would be expedient to subject all inland letters to a penny postage the half-ounce, increasing at the rate of one penny with every additional half-ounce. It advised also that payment of postage should be required in advance; and for the facilitation of this plan, recommended the adoption of stamped covers, which should have the effect of franking the letters enclosed. The use of these stamps was to be made compulsory as soon as justified by experience. At this time, the report added, it was calculated the number of letters, &c., passing through the post-offices of the United Kingdom were from 75,000,000 to 80,000,000 annually; of which about 5,700,000 were general-post letters. The number of franks was about 7,000,000; and of newspapers, 44,000,000.

THE STATE OF IRELAND.

As usual, Mr. O’Connell devoted his time during the parliamentary recess to “agitation.” A series of manifestoes issued from his retreat at Derrynane Abbey, all well calculated to stir up the evil passions of human nature. Nor were these missiles the only instruments of his agitation. On the very day of his arrival in Dublin, after parliament was prorogued, he convened a meeting of his constituents for the morrow, in order to take into consideration “ulterior measures, to procure from the British legislature ‘full justice for Ireland,’ or to provide for the contingency of a perseverance in the refusal of that legislature to right the people of Ireland.” Accordingly, a large concourse of people assembled at the Corn-exchange, and were addressed by the demagogue in that braggart style which he well knew would win its way to their feelings. In his speech Mr. O’Connell intimated his intention of forming a new association, the exertions of which were to be directed to obtain for Ireland a greater share in the representation of the United Kingdom. He developed his plan for accomplishing this design in a series of letters to the people. In these letters he founded his allegation, that Ireland had not her fair proportion of members of the house of commons, on this data. By the last census it appeared that the population of England and Wales was 13,899,675; of Scotland, 2,365,930; and of Ireland, 7,943,940. Scotland, he said, had fifty-three representatives, while Ireland had only one hundred and five; so that the Scotch had more than half the number of representatives possessed by the Irish; whereas, in order to be on an equality, the latter ought to have one hundred and fifty-nine. In order to be on an equality with the English, he said, they ought to have one hundred and sixty-six; but Mr. O’Connell said that he would be satisfied with one hundred and fifty. In order to obtain that number he proposed the organization of an association sufficiently numerous to speak the sentiments of all Ireland. For this purpose, he said, the “Precursor Society” had been established, and was now in progress of enrolment. Mr. T. M. Ray was secretary to the “Precursor Society,” and to become a member it was necessary to pay him one shilling at the enrolment. All the population might have the privilege of enrolment—men, women, and children—for the more shillings that were paid, the better for the pockets of the agitators. The operations of the society was to be conducted by local boards, corresponding with that over which Mr. Ray presided at the Corn-exchange Rooms, Dublin. The duty of the “Precursor Society,” in every parish, was to procure petitions to parliament for “justice to Ireland;” for a corporate reform; for an amendment of the law of election, and extension of the suffrage, and an increase of representatives. The precursors were also instructed to furnish accurate details of the state of the franchise in every parish, and to keep up and extend the registry. This was what Mr. O’Connell designated in one of his letters as “one great experiment more to obtain justice;” and if this failed, then he would have repeal.

THE AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

It has been seen in the parliamentary debates that the affairs of Canada were in a very unsettled state; it is now necessary, however, to give a brief account of the transactions which had taken place in that province.

During several preceding years great dissensions had existed in Lower Canada; and in the year 1837 these dissensions broke out into open insurrection. The provincial parliament of that province assembled on the 18th of August; but from its refractory conduct Lord Gosford was compelled to prorogue it. He had no other alternative but to dismiss the members, since they plainly declared that they suspended all deliberation until the consummation of the reforms announced by and in the name of the imperial authorities. On the prorogation of the provincial parliament everything denoted imminent troubles. The authorities were on the alert; and plans were formed for the effective disposition of the small force that the local government possessed. Nor were the loyalists inactive: a great meeting was held at Montreal, at which resolutions were adopted in support of the British government. These resolutions were followed up by the formation of regiments of volunteers, thus showing a steady determination to carry them out to the utmost. But, notwithstanding all this, the French party, or patriots, convened a great meeting in the county of Richelieu, which they termed “the meeting of the five counties,” at which place delegates were collected from the various parishes. The people met in a large meadow; and in this meadow was erected a column, surmounted with a cap of liberty, and bearing this inscription:—“To Papineau, by his grateful brother patriots.” Papineau was there; and after haranguing the multitude with other leaders of the faction, and a string of insurrectionary resolutions having been passed, the transatlantic demagogue was conducted to the foot of the column, where an address was delivered to him by one of his brother agitators. The proceedings of the day terminated with a procession of young men, who, marching up to the pillar, sung a patriotic hymn, and, with their hands placed on the column, devoted themselves to their country. Mischief was now fairly afloat. Soon after this a collision took place in the streets of Montreal between the “loyalists and patriots,” in which the latter were defeated. The troops in Lower Canada were reinforced by two regiments sent from Halifax; and Sir Francis Head placed the whole of the troops stationed in Upper Canada at the disposal of the Lower, although there were symptoms of disaffection within his jurisdiction. Still rebellion continued. Every day displayed a new manifestation of an intended rising: on the one side men assembled in arms, using threatening language; and on the other the magistrates issued proclamations and warrants, which the military were called on to enforce. On one occasion a party of volunteer cavalry, who composed the escort of some prisoners, was waylaid by an overpowering assemblage of insurgents, who, receiving them with a galling fire, put them to the rout, and rescued the prisoners. Before the close of the last year many of the leaders of the faction were in prison, and more of them, among whom was M. Papineau, had withdrawn to a place of safety.

The insurrection in Lower Canada rendered it necessary for the British government to appoint a species of dictatorial governor, one who should possess the power of making temporary provision for the government of Canada. It has been already seen that Lord Durham was selected for this important mission, and that he had arrived in the province. Before, however, relating the particulars of his government, it is necessary to take a retrospective view of events in Upper Canada.

Sir Francis Head at this time was governor of the upper province of Canada; and at the period when he arrived there a Mr. Lyon Mackenzie, who had originally emigrated from Scotland, was a principal leader of the “Reform,” or malcontent party in the province. In the year 1832 Mr. Mackenzie made his appearance in London, as the agent of his party; and in that capacity he was received with every mark of respect. Mr. Mackenzie, in fact, was so successful in his mission as to procure the removal of the attorney and solicitor-generals from their posts, a penalty which they paid for the part they had taken in joining in a vote which had expelled their antagonist from the house of assembly. He returned in triumph to Upper Canada; and, supported by the approval of the English cabinet, succeeded in regaining a seat in the house of assembly. At the ensuing election “the reformers” obtained a large majority in that assembly; and the result was that a “grievance committee” was appointed, which committee made a report that was subsequently transmitted to England. It was to redress the grievances therein stated that Sir Francis Head was despatched to Canada; and he was hailed on his arrival there as a “tried reformer.” His appearance under such circumstances naturally excited the distrust of the loyalists, who gave indications of their dissatisfaction. Sir Francis Head, however, was nothing daunted at this demonstration; he had the grievances of Upper Canada to redress, and he had the remedies; and whether the Tories liked the medicine or not, he did not care a straw. At the same time he soon gave an intimation to the Republican leaders that he was not the kind of man they believed him to be. Beyond the grievances they had enumerated in the report, they had a variety of others hitherto unmentioned; and when this was intimated to him, he gave a distinct intimation that he should not take these into consideration. His graphic account of his interview will well illustrate the manner in which he treated the Republicans. He says,—“When Mr. Mackenzie, bringing with him a letter of introduction from Mr. Hume, called upon me, I thought that of course he would be too happy to discuss with me the contents of the report; but his mind seemed to nauseate its subjects. Afraid to look me in the face, he sat with his feet not-reaching the ground, and with his countenance averted from me at an angle of about seventy degrees, while, with the eccentricity, the volubility, and, indeed, the appearance of a madman, the tiny creature raved in all directions about grievances here, and grievances there, which the committee, he said, had not ventured, to enumerate. ‘Sir,’ I exclaimed, ‘let us cure what we have got here first!’ pointing to the report before me. But no; nothing that I could say would induce this pedlar to face his own report; and I soon found that it had the same effect upon all the members, and that, like the repelling end of a magnet, I had only to present it to the Radicals to drive them from the very object which his majesty’s government expected would have possessed attractions.” On his arrival Sir Francis Head promulgated his instructions; a step which had the effect of precipitating matters in Lower Canada. He then proceeded to act, by adding three Reformers to his executive council, making the total number six. By this means the executive council was brought into unison with the majority of the house of assembly. Thus favoured, in furtherance of the views of that body as then constituted, the board requested the governor to bestow upon it a considerable enlargement of its powers. But this sealed the fate of the executive council. Instead of granting their request, Sir Francis, who had already become hostile to the Reformers, dismissed the whole of the members of which the council was composed. This brought him into collision with the house of assembly; the supplies were stopped, and violent and condemnatory addresses drawn up. Sir Francis, however, fought them with their own weapons; when they stopped the supplies, he refused to assent to bills providing for their own contingencies; and in April, 1836, first prorogued, and then dissolved his exasperated parliament. The next assembly presented a majority of opposite politics to the last, and Sir Francis had everything his own way: he “rode on a full tide of popularity.” Still he was beset with difficulties on every hand; and his mode of governing was of so novel and experimental a nature, that it was evident he must sooner or later become offensive to his superiors at home. Before the close of the year, indeed, he found himself in collision with Lord Glenelg. During that period and in the following year he addressed several memorandums to the colonial office, in which he gave a description of the political state of Canada, and offered his advice as to what measures were necessary for its good government. It must be confessed that his views were generally of the most eccentric character; and hence they were either unnoticed by the government at home, or he was given to understand that they were not thought worthy to be included among those submitted to the imperial government. The points at issue between Sir Francis and his superiors progressively accumulated, until at length the lieutenant-governor broke out into insubordination, and thereby made his recall a matter of necessity. But before his recall, and while the correspondence was passing between Sir Francis and Lord Glenelg, an insurrection broke out, which was headed by Mr. Mackenzie: Toronto was attacked by him, bearing on his colours the name of “Bidwell,” the judge-elect for the court of Queen’s Bench. This attack failed, and it became incumbent on Sir Francis Head’s successor, Major-general Sir George Arthur, to institute proceedings against some of those engaged in the outbreak, who had been taken prisoners. Among these were Samuel Lount, a native of the United States, and Peter Mathews, an Upper Canadian, both of them men of considerable property. Mathews had headed a party, and attacked the city, when Sir Francis Head was shut up in the Town-hall; on which occasion a bridge and several houses were set on fire. Being brought to trial they pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to death—a sentence that was executed on them. Upon being informed of this event, Lord Glenelg wrote to express his regret that these severities should have been deemed requisite, and expressed a hope that no similar necessity might recur. No more of the offenders suffered capital punishment; but great embarrassment was occasioned by the number of prisoners, it being alike inexpedient to pardon and inconvenient to punish. Sir Francis Head had instituted a board of commissioners, with the vice-chancellor of the province at their head, for the purpose of investigating the cases, and classifying the offenders according to their guilt. A considerable number were finally discharged on bail; others were bound over to keep the peace; some were set at liberty; and of the remainder, a few, principally Americans, were banished from the province; while the residue, for the most part men of property and influence, were sentenced to transportation to the penal colonies. But while the government was occupied in the disposal of these prisoners, the marauders on the American side of the border were making preparations for a renewal of hostilities; and on the 30th of May, 1838, a band of these outlaws boarded the Sir Robert Peel British steamer at Well’s Island, situated in the river St. Lawrence, and belonging to the United States. The passengers were robbed of everything, and the vessel was set on fire and then abandoned. Lord Durham, who had just arrived, offered £1,000 reward for the discovery and conviction of the offenders; but the marauders set the authorities, British as well as American, at defiance. Johnson, their commander, celebrated for his address and courage, became the terror of the coast, and executed his schemes of plunder with success and impunity. During the summer and autumn the preparations for invasion continued to be conducted on the American border without any attempt at concealment, and the alarm of the Canadians was naturally proportionate to the danger. Sir George Arthur devoted himself with the greatest assiduity to the defence of the province upon an extensive scale; but the known lenity of Lord Durham had excited a strong feeling of dissatisfaction in the upper province, and had created a feeling of lukewarmness, against which it was difficult to work. On the other hand, Lord Durham thought that the local government had erred on the opposite side of severity. On this subject he wrote to the government at home:—“It cannot be doubted that events of the past year have greatly increased the difficulty of settling the disorders of Upper Canada. A degree of discontent, approaching, if not amounting to disaffection, has gained considerable ground. The causes of dissatisfaction continue to act on the minds of the reformers; and their hope of redress, under the present order of things, has been seriously diminished. The exasperation caused by the conflict itself, the suspicions and terrors of that trying period, and the use made by the triumphant party of the power thrown into their hands, have heightened the passions which existed before. It certainly appeared too much as if the rebellion had been purposely invited by the government, and the unfortunate men who took part in it, deliberately drawn into a trap by those who subsequently inflicted so severe a punishment on them for their error.”

It seemed, too, as if the dominant party made use of the occasion afforded by the real guilt of a few desperate and imprudent men, in order to persecute or disable the whole body of their political opponents. A great number of perfectly innocent individuals were thrown into prison, and suffered in person, property, and character. The whole body of reformers were subjected to suspicion, and to harassing proceedings, instituted by magistrates whose political leanings were notoriously adverse to them. Severe laws were passed, under colour of which individuals very generally esteemed were punished without any form of trial—I make no mention of the reasons which, in the opinion of the local government, rendered those different steps advisable, because my object is not to discuss the propriety of its conduct, but to point out the effects which it necessarily had in augmenting irritation. The revolt in Lower Canada has been noticed at the commencement of this article. After this event Lord Gosford was recalled, and during the interval between his departure, and the arrival of Lord Durham, the functions of government in that province devolved on Sir John Colborne. The first care of Sir John, after the termination of the revolt, concerned the disposal of the prisoners, of whom a great number remained in custody. In the whole, about three hundred and twenty-six were from time to time liberated, leaving about one hundred and sixty in confinement, among whom seventy-two stood charged with being among the principal promoters of the insurrection. It was not expected that any of these would be convicted if tried by ordinary juries; but Lord Glenelg being informed of this, declined to sanction a resort to any other species of court, without previously submitting as a practical test the anticipations as to the issues of the ordinary tribunals. Sir John Colborne was instructed to take steps for reducing the number of prisoners still remaining, by allowing some of them after arraignment to plead guilty, on the assurance that the judgment recorded against them should not be executed, if they would consent to leave the province. From the remaining number he was directed to select four or five cases, and bring them before the ordinary courts of the province, the juries being convened according to the existing practice; but in case this line of proceeding should not appear expedient, it was suggested that a law should be passed, suspending the _habeas corpus_ act, and that the prisoners should be detained until Lord Durham’s arrival. Sir John Colborne adopted this latter course, being little disposed to try state-prisoners under what he considered a certainty of their acquittal. In the meantime, however, the news arrived of the new act of parliament, which provisionally invested him with the powers which were eventually to devolve on Lord Durham. In pursuance of his fresh instructions he proceeded to nominate provisionally a special council, consisting of twenty-one members, of whom eleven were French Canadians, and two natives of the province. After preparing a series of “rules and orders” for the better conduct of their deliberations, this council proceeded to pass ordinances for such domestic objects as would have come before the local parliaments in the ordinary course, and to take necessary measures to meet the peculiar exigencies of the time. Among the latter class may be mentioned enactments suspending the _habeas corpus_, and imposing certain restrictions on the publishers of newspapers. An ordinance was also passed to continue the local act for the transportation of offenders from the province to England, and from thence to New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land; an act which was on the point of expiring. By a second ordinance it was provided that, upon the petition of any person charged with high treason committed in the province, it should be lawful for the person administering the government, before the arraignment of the offender, to grant a pardon upon such terms as should seem proper, which pardon should have the same effect as an attainder, so far as regarded the forfeiture of the real and personal estate of the person therein named; and further, that in case any person should be pardoned under that ordinance, upon condition of being transported, or of voluntary banishment, either for life or for a shorter time, and should afterwards return without lawful excuse, contrary to the condition of his pardon, he should be deemed guilty of felony, and forfeit his life. By a third ordinance it was enacted that if a person against whom an indictment for treason was found by a grand-jury in the province would not appear, he might be summoned by proclamation to surrender himself by a given day, such day not to be less than three months from the date of the proclamation; and in the event of his failing to do so, should stand and be adjudged attainted of the crime expressed in the indictment, and suffer and forfeit accordingly, and judgment be recorded to that effect. After issuing these ordinances, with others of minor importance, and after repealing martial-law in the district of Montreal, on the 5th of May the council was prorogued. On the 29th of the same month Lord Durham arrived at Quebec, and immediately proceeded to the council-chamber at the castle, and took possession of the government with the accustomed formalities. His first act was to issue a proclamation, assuring the people that he appeared among them as a friend and arbitrator, ready at all times to listen to them without respect to party, race, or politics. On the 31st of May he addressed a circular to the respective members of the executive council, dispensing with their services, having previously formed another, composed of the secretaries to the general government; namely, C. Buller, Esq., M.P., chief secretary; T. E. M. Turton, Esq., secretary; Colonel G. Couper, military secretary; the provincial secretary; and the commissary-general. Among the earliest measures of Lord Durham was the mission of Colonel Grey to Washington, with instructions to expostulate with the American government on the state of things existing on its own borders. Colonel Grey obtained the fullest assurances of the president that the American government desired to preserve the good understanding existing with England, and ample promises of co-operation in any measures which Lord Durham might think necessary to adopt for restoring the peace of the frontier. A more difficult affair for Lord Durham to settle was the disposal of the state prisoners. His lordship himself remarked that it was “by far the most delicate and dangerous” of all the matters requiring settlement. The manner in which his lordship settled this question has already been seen in the record of the recent debates in parliament. Having appointed a special council, consisting of five members only, he, with the sanction of this council, issued an ordinance, which, after reciting that Wolf Nelson, and seven others therein named, had acknowledged their participation in high-treason, and submitted themselves to her majesty’s pleasure, and that Papineau with fifteen others had absconded, enacted that it should be lawful for her majesty to transport Nelson and his seven associates to Bermuda, during pleasure, there to be subjected to such restraints as should be deemed fit; and further, that if any person of the above classes should be found at large, or within the province without permission, they should be deemed guilty of high-treason, and on conviction of coming within the province, suffer death. The ordinance further empowered the governor for the time being to grant, whenever he should think fit, permission to all, or any, of the above-named individuals to return to the province. By a special clause two other classes of persons implicated in the murder of Lieutenant Weir and one Joseph Chartrand, were excluded from the operation of the ordinance, and from the benefit of any amnesty which might be proclaimed. The ordinance was accompanied by a proclamation of amnesty, which declared that, with the exception of the persons named therein, all persons then in custody on a charge of high-treason, or who had withdrawn themselves from justice beyond the limits of the province, should, on giving proper security, be at liberty to return to their own homes. What views were taken in the imperial parliament has been seen. During the debates there, Lord Durham applied himself to the consideration of questions connected with the management of the crown-lands within his dominion. He formed a design for making these lands more subservient to the purpose of emigration than they had hitherto been. A commission of inquiry into the disposal of the crown-lands to that end was issued by him, and he directed similar investigations to be instituted in the other colonies subject to his control. Subsequently his lordship commenced a progress through the two provinces; and, according to his despatches, he was warmly greeted on every hand. He writes:—“Everywhere, in the most insignificant village, as in the most populous town, I have been received with the utmost enthusiasm: in fact, in no part of England have I ever been more warmly greeted, or received more unequivocal marks of respect from all ranks and classes. I announce this fact with much satisfaction, as it is an unerring mark of the feelings with which the measures which I have adopted for the public good have been regarded by the great majority of the inhabitants of the two provinces.” It is quite clear, however, that Lord Durham had not conciliated the great body of the people. During the month of September, those who were charged with the crime of murdering the French Canadian, Chartrand, were tried, and although they were arraigned before a jury consisting exclusively of French Canadians, and were moreover notoriously guilty, they were acquitted. On this subject, in one of his reports, Lord Durham says:—“A perusal of the notes of the chief-justice in this case, will satisfy every candid and well-ordered mind, that a base and cruel assassination, committed without a single circumstance of provocation or palliation, was brought home by evidence, which no man ever pretended to doubt, against the prisoners, whom the jury nevertheless acquitted. The duty of giving this dishonest verdict had been most assiduously inculcated by the French press before the trial came on; the jurors are said to have been kept for some time in the hands of zealous partizans, whose business it was not only to influence their inclination, but to stimulate their courage; the array of the leaders of the party who were present at the trial, was supposed to be collected for the same purpose; and it is notorious that the acquittal was celebrated at public entertainments, to which the jurors were invited, in order that they might be thanked for their verdict.” This intelligence seems to have had the effect of opening the eyes of Lord Glenelg and his colleagues, as to the impolicy of the restrictions which had been imposed upon the colonial authorities with respect to the trial of political offenders. In his reply, Lord Glenelg stated that it was the desire of her majesty’s government that an ordinance should be passed by the special council of Lower Canada, constituting a tribunal for the trial of treason and murder; leaving it to Lord Durham’s own discretion how such a tribunal should be formed. It does not appear, however, that Lord Durham adopted any plan for securing the conviction of such offenders as it might be deemed expedient to bring to trial. He scarcely, indeed, had an opportunity of making any alteration in the criminal law. Soon after Lord Glenelg had given directions on that point, he was compelled to communicate the determination of ministers to annul his celebrated ordinance. After informing him that so much of that edict as related to the Bermudas was generally admitted to be invalid, and that in all other respects the law-officers of the crown thought its provisions were within the competency of the governor and special council; he said that, in consequence of the discussions in parliament, and the unpopularity of the penal parts of the ordinance, government, though reluctantly, advised her majesty to disallow the ordinance. Lord Glenelg then proceeded to direct Lord Durham, with a view of preventing the return of the prisoners from Bermuda, to pass an ordinance subjecting them to such penalty, short of death, as might be thought expedient, in the event of their being convicted of returning to the province without permission. With regard to those who had previously fled from justice, it was suggested it might be sufficient by proclamation to make it known that, should they re-enter the province, they would be forthwith arrested, and dealt with according to law, on the charge of treason. The expediency of suspending the _habeas corpus_ act was pointed out; and the despatch concluded with an assurance of the earnest desire of ministers to afford Lord Durham the utmost support in the arduous discharge of his duties. Before these instructions were received, however, Lord Durham had despatched a letter notifying his resolution to resign his office. In this letter he dwelt on the incessant persecutions to which he was exposed in the house of lords; the backwardness of ministers in his defence; and the injurious effects of these circumstances upon the moral authority of his government. “Upon two things,” said he, “could I chiefly rely for ultimate success: first, the great extent of the legal powers conferred upon me; secondly, the impression which prevailed throughout the colonies, that I might reckon with perfect confidence on the undeviating support and approval of the government.” Deprived of these by the proceedings in question, he proceeded to say, the prestige of his situation was gone for ever, and he had resolved to quit his untenable post, Soon after this, Lord Durham forwarded to Lord Glenelg a statement of the grounds upon which he was prepared to maintain that no part of the ordinance was illegal, however imperative it might, and must of necessity be without assistance and co-operation at home. In another paper, of the same date, he entered at great length into an examination of the conduct of ministers in the late proceedings, arraigning them with great severity for deserting him in the hour of need. He asked, “in what their opposition to the second reading of Lord Brougham’s bill consisted? In a concession far more calculated to weaken my hands than would have been any vote of the house of lords, in which it is notorious that her majesty’s government have never commanded a majority.” His lordship added, “A vote of the house of lords adverse to her majesty’s government, or merely condemnatory of any proceedings of mine, would have been considered almost as a matter of course in the present state of parties; and would, if it had been decidedly opposed by the ministers, have left my authority untouched, because it would have been attributed to the mere party motives of a powerful opposition.” After remonstrating against the conduct of ministers, Lord Durham proceeded to vindicate his policy. As regarded the particular defect of the ordinance, his lordship contended that he had power to banish people from the province, to keep them in custody during the transit, and to land them at Bermuda or elsewhere. At the same time his lordship admitted that his jurisdiction did not extend further: once landed in Bermuda, the prisoners were subject only to the laws of the island. Lord Durham, after justifying his policy, made some remarks on the impossibility of governing the country with any effect; and then proceeded to consider Lord Glenelg’s suggestions of the course which it was advisable to adopt in the present emergency. His lordship treated the suggestion of another ordinance, banishing from the province the eight persons who had been sent to Bermuda, as futile; and stated that he had strong objections to the suspension of the _habeas corpus_. He remarked:—“Men’s notions of right and freedom would be more shocked at such an universal violation of every man’s dearest rights, than by any summary process adopted for the punishment of the undeniable guilt of a few. In the event of a general outbreak, it might be proper that the government should be armed with the power of arresting objects of its suspicion without trial. But there existed no such necessity at present; and he did not think it justifiable to take away the franchise of a whole people, in order to punish a few known and dangerous individuals, or to guard against the misconduct of twenty-three men, by enveloping them in a general forfeiture of personal liberty.” In conclusion Lord Durham intimated his intention of remaining a few weeks longer, only in order to complete certain measures then in progress. Upon the receipt of Lord Durham’s first announcement of his intention to throw up his office, Lord Glenelg endeavoured to soothe his mind, by acknowledging that he had much reason to complain; and entreated him, upon public grounds, to reconsider his decision. His lordship, however, remained firm: he retained office only until arrangements had been made for some one to assume the reins of government. Before he left Canada he proclaimed the act of indemnity, and notified her majesty’s disallowance of the ordinance. He accompanied the promulgation of these acts with a manifesto, in which he forgot alike what was due to the country and to himself. The tendency of this manifesto will be seen by Lord Glenelg’s remarks upon it. He observed:—“The proclamation of the 9th of October, her majesty’s confidential advisers regard not merely as a deviation from the course which has hitherto been invariably pursued by the governors of British possessions abroad, but as a dangerous departure from the practice and principles of the constitution. They consider as open to a most serious objection an appeal by such an officer to the public at large, from measures adopted by the sovereign, with the advice and consent of parliament. The terms in which that appeal has been made, in this instance, appear to her majesty’s ministers calculated to impair the reverence due to the royal authority, to derogate from the character of the imperial legislature, to excite amongst the disaffected hopes of impunity, and to enhance the difficulties with which your lordship’s successor will have to contend. The ministers of the crown having humbly submitted this opinion to the queen, it is my duty to inform you that I have received her majesty’s commands to signify to your lordship her majesty’s disapprobation of your proclamation of the 9th of October. Under these circumstances, her majesty’s government are prepared to admit that your continuance in the government of British North America could be attended with no beneficial result.” Lord Durham’s manifesto was deservedly condemned by all parties, as unbecoming the office and character of the queen’s representative: it procured for him, in the _Times_ newspaper, the unenviable title of “the lord-high seditioner.” In Canada, however, it increased the golden opinions entertained of him greatly. Public meetings were convened, and addresses expressive of sorrow at his resignation poured in upon him from all quarters. At home, also, there were those who admired his character and applauded his conduct. His lordship sailed from Quebec on the 1st of November, and on the 26th he arrived in Plymouth harbour. At Plymouth, Devonport, and Exeter he received complimentary addresses, and unfortunately he was betrayed upon these occasions into renewed indiscretions, the only excuse for which could be that he had received most serious provocation.

In his reply to the addresses at Devonport and Plymouth, Lord Durham boasted that he had “effaced the remains of a disastrous rebellion,” and “had conciliated the esteem of a great and powerful nation, in which were to be found all the elements of danger or security to our North American possessions.” Before he reached Exeter, however, where another address awaited him, he was compelled to say that he had foreseen another event, the intelligence of which had just been conveyed from Liverpool—the renewal of the rebellion in Canada.

On the departure of Lord Durham, the government again provisionally devolved upon Sir John Colborne. It was expected before he set sail that a renewal of the rebellion would take place during the winter. On the 20th of October, indeed, his lordship had informed Lord Glenelg that the indications of mischief were so numerous and urgent that it was no longer possible to conceal a consciousness of danger. The indications of conspiracy had, in fact, become undeniable. Throughout the French population there existed a formidable organization, bound together by oaths and secret signs. Knowing this, the loyalists in both provinces either took up their abode in the towns, or fled altogether from the British dominion. What made their situation the more critical was the reluctance of the militia and volunteers to take up arms. This was especially the case in Upper Canada, and it seems to have chiefly originated in their dissatisfaction with the lenity of the government. No sooner had Lord Durham departed than the danger became imminent. Arrests took place at Montreal on the following night: domiciliary visits were general; guards and pickets were dispersed in all parts of the city, and its approaches occupied. It was originally intended by the insurgents that the rising should take place at Montreal, on Sunday, the 3rd instant, when the troops were unarmed, and at church. The precautions of Sir John Colborne, however, defeated this scheme, and Beauharnois was selected for the theatre of war. The _habitans_ were now, therefore, once more in arms against the British crown. A numerous party attacked the house of Mr. Ellice, late private secretary to Lord Durham, and that gentleman with three others were carried away by the rebels. On the same day an interesting incident occurred at Caughnawaga, an Indian village. While at church, the Indians were informed that a large body of armed men were secreted in their neighbourhood; and rushing from the sacred walls, they hurried home, seized what arms came to hand, raised the war-whoop, fell upon the enemy, and captured seventy prisoners, with scarcely a show of resistance. The Indians conveyed their prisoners to Montreal, bound with their own sashes and garters; and when Sir John Colborne thanked the chief of the party, he characteristically offered to bring in the scalp of every _habitant_ in the vicinity within twenty-four hours. Sir John Colborne, however, did not think it prudent to give him such a commission, though use of these warriors was made during the struggle. Every day the number of the insurgents increased. Between the 3rd and 6th of November, four thousand were concentrated at Napierville, in La Prairie, under the command of Dr. Robert Nelson, Dr. Cote, and one Gagnor. Upon this point Major-general Sir James Macdonnell was directed to march; but before he could arrive the rebels had dispersed, and were beyond pursuit. In their route they were twice attacked and defeated by a small party of volunteers, losing in the whole sixty men killed, and having about an equal number wounded. The loyalist forces now scoured the insurgent districts, and it was found impossible to prevent many excesses from taking place. The village of Beauharnois was partially destroyed by fire, and the houses of disaffected persons in every part shared the same fate. But while the war was thus easily suppressed in Lower Canada, their American coadjutors were actively engaged on their side. On the evening of the 12th they effected a landing at a place called Prescott, in Upper Canada, to the number of five hundred men, carrying with them several field-pieces. These were, however, defeated by the troops under the command of Colonel Dundas, Major McBean, Colonel Young, and Captain Sandom. Nearly two hundred of them were taken, and conveyed to Kingston, to be tried by court-martial; many were slain, and the rest escaped across the river. Another attack was made by the American marauders on the 4th of December, near Sandwich, at the western extremity of Upper Canada. A steam-boat and the barracks were set on fire, and Dr. Hume, a military surgeon, having fallen into their hands, was barbarously murdered. On discovering this outrage, the militia, under the command of Colonel Price, assembled, and on their approach the enemy fled. Twenty-six of their number were slain in their flight, and twenty-five captured.

In the meantime Sir John Colborne and his special council were busy in the exercise of their legislative functions. Ordinances were passed for substituting martial law, for suspending the _habeas corpus_, for the attainder of persons against whom the sentence of courts-martial should be given, and for preventing, by highly penal provisions, the administering of unlawful oaths. It had been suggested by Lord Glenelg to Lord Durham, that a special court for the trial of “rebels and murderers” should be instituted. Sir John Colborne, however, preferred to resort to courts-martial for the disposal of prisoners recently captured. Soon after the dispersion of the insurgents, therefore, a general court-martial was convened, and twelve prisoners, all of French extraction, were arraigned before it. Two of these were acquitted, and the rest were sentenced to death; a sentence, however, which was only executed upon two of the most notorious—Cardinal, a notary, and Duguette, a tavern-keeper, who had commanded in both insurrections. In Upper Canada, where Sir George Arthur provisionally governed, the difficulties attendant upon the disposal of the prisoners were greater. The Upper Canadians demanded severity, and would not hear of mercy being extended to men whom they deemed robbers and murderers. A court-martial was assembled at Kingston for the trial of some of the recently captured prisoners; and several of them, as Van Schoultz, a Pole, who commanded the brigands, and three of his associates in command, Abbey, George, and Woodruff, were executed. Not long afterwards five more of the prisoners, three of whom had been engaged in the affair near Sandwich, suffered the same fate. At this time, indeed, according to Sir George Arthur’s report, the feelings of the loyal portion of the inhabitants of the upper province, were in the highest degree exasperated. He writes:—“Never was there a task more difficult than to decide what course, under the existing circumstances of the country, should be pursued, so as to combine the least possible violation of public feeling with a sense of justice, preserving withal a due and necessary regard to mercy in its administration; mercy not only as regards the prisoners, whose fate was yet undecided, but which respectively has reference to the lives that may hereafter be sacrificed by the adoption of a present injudicious measure.”

It may be mentioned that while these events were transpiring in Upper and Lower Canada, the remainder of the British North American provinces were in perfect harmony with the British government. In Newfoundland, indeed, there were the elements of discord between the colonial legislature and their rulers, superadded to which were religious dissensions; but these circumstances gave no cause for alarm. The broils prevailing there owed their existence to Roman Catholic agitation; but the Protestant interests were too strong to be shaken by them, or the government disturbed.

THE STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During the whole of this year the war still continued in Spain. The Carlists were less successful and less enterprising than in the two preceding years; but their cause was not yet hopeless. A body of them was defeated at Yebenes, in the province of Toledo, and at Val de Penas in New Castile, by Major-general Flinta; but shortly after this latter defeat they took possession of Almaden, with its famous quicksilver mines, the only element of credit remaining with the queen’s government. Basilio Garcia, however, failed in his endeavours to destroy the works of the mines; and having evacuated the town, retired into the mountains of Toledo, whence he harassed the surrounding country, and levied heavy contributions. While Basilio Garcia was carrying on war in Castile and Grenada, another body of Carlists, under the command of Count Negri, was making its way into the interior. He advanced as far as Segovia, but he then turned to the northward; and after presenting himself to no purpose before the walls of Valladolid, he hastened his retrograde march with all possible diligence towards the mountains. In the meantime Basilio Garcia had been again defeated at Bejar with great loss; and he hurried with the remains of his column into the province of Soria, where he effected a junction with Balmaseda. All this time Don Carlos was at Estella; but on the 10th of May, the discontent of the Nayarese in his service compelled him to withdraw to Tolosa. About this time Espartero, who had been elevated to the rank of captain-general of Spain, commenced active operations. He advanced to Pampeluna, and Don Carlos then removed to Glorrio. A series of conflicts now took place; and the struggle closed with the battle of Maella, in which Cabrera, who was the only Carlist general who in this year increased his reputation, defeated the Christino general, Pardinas, with great loss: out of 4,500 men only 1,500 men are said to have escaped: Pardinas himself was slain. But one of the most important events that took place during this year in Spain was an insurrection at Seville, headed by Cordova and Narvaez; this, however, was quelled by the activity of Espartero.

The history of Portugal for the year is marked by no very striking event. The efforts of the Cortes were chiefly directed to the averting of the catastrophe of a national bankruptcy, which was effected by the acceptation of a loan, conjointly tendered by the Mercantile Association, and the Lisbon bank. Early in March a street riot took place in the capital, and threw it into disorder for some few days; but it did not produce any result beyond the bloodshed which it occasioned. The Miguelite guerillas, however, ravaged Portugal, and especially the southern provinces, more this year than they had hitherto done. Remeihido, especially, who had been educated for the priesthood, committed many daring acts; but in the course of the summer he was attacked in his mountain-fastnesses by Colonel Fontoura, and after a sharp conflict his band was routed, and himself captured: he was shot at Faro.

In the month of March the king of Holland intimated to the conference at London sitting on the Hollando-Belgic question, that “having been constantly disappointed in his just expectations of being able to obtain by negociation better terms for his beloved subjects, he had become convinced that the only pledge which still remained for him to give of his regard for their welfare, and the sole means to attain his object, consisted in a full and entire assent on his part to the conditions of separation which the courts of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, had declared to be unalterable and irrevocable.” His majesty, therefore, declared his readiness to accept the twenty-four articles which had been agreed upon in the year 1831. Belgium, however, now refused to accede to the arrangement, by resolving not to cede Luxembourg. But the conference insisted peremptorily on its cession; and it was quite apparent that Belgium would be compelled to render obedience to its decree.

It may be mentioned that an important treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, was this year concluded between Great Britain and Austria, thus further cementing the ancient and natural alliance between two countries, of whom it has been said, “that for one hundred and fifty years they have always had the same enemies, though those enemies have not been the same.”