The agitators supported the repeal as a measure tending not more to perpetuate their own domination, than to secure the ruin of the Protestant establishment. Many, also, who resisted repeal, still demanded changes and curtailments in that establishment, they considering it the principal cause of all the turbulence and misery afflicting Ireland. There were others again who disliked it, not because it was a Protestant, but because it was a religious establishment; and such men inveighed against what they termed an unhallowed connection between church and state, and the practical injustice of compelling persons of one belief to support the institutions of a different creed. This party was ready to attack, not only the revenues, but the very existence of the Irish church, as the first step towards the destruction of that of England. Union in the cabinet, coupled with a determination not to be driven further than themselves were inclined to go, might have rendered ministers sufficiently strong to defy such destructive reformers. Unfortunately, however, on this question, the cabinet itself was divided. One portion of the ministers, numerically the strongest, seemed inclined to admit the principle of appropriation, which they had repudiated in the bill of last session, by withdrawing the clause in which it was contained. On the other hand, the minority, however willing to remove striking and useless inequalities in the distribution of the ecclesiastical revenue, and to adopt measures which would prevent irritating collisions in its collection, resisted on principle any transfer of it to other purposes; and they especially refused to acquiesce in proposals for making the Protestant establishment depend on the comparative strength or weakness of the Romish church. This discordance of opinion would have prevented ministers from starting the subject; but it was forced on them by a numerous party, which made up in fury and zeal what was lacking in knowledge and discretion. On the 27th of May, Mr. Ward, one of the members for St. Albans, moved a resolution for reducing the temporalities of the Irish church, as exceeding the spiritual wants of the Protestant establishment. This motion gave rise to a division in the cabinet. In supporting his proposition, Mr. Ward contended that vital and extensive changes in the church of Ireland had now become unavoidable on the grounds of mere expediency. The tithe system, he said, was the source of all the disorganisation that prevailed in Ireland. Resistance to it was almost universal, comprehending both Catholics and Protestants. Commutation, he argued, would do no good; a new appropriation of church property alone could produce even a momentary calm. Mr. Ward's motion was seconded by Mr. Grote, who said that the means of relief must be suggested from a higher quarter when once the principle was recognised. Lord Althorp here arose to request the house to adjourn, in consequence of circumstances which had come to his knowledge since he had entered the house. He could not at present, he said, state the nature of these circumstances; but the house would doubtless believe that he would not make such a proposition without being convinced of its propriety. The house adjourned, according to Lord Althorp's request; and it appeared that the circumstances to which he had alluded, and which had been communicated to him while Mr. Ward was speaking, was the resignation of those ministers who would not consent to the principle which his motion involved. Those who resigned were Mr. Stanley, colonial secretary; Sir James Graham, first lord of the admiralty; the Duke of Richmond, postmaster-general; and the Earl of Ripon, lord privy-seal. These vacant offices were soon filled up: the Marquis of Conyngham became postmaster-general; the Earl of Carlisle accepted the privy-seal; Lord Auckland became the first lord of the admiralty; and the colonial office was filled up by Mr. Spring Rice. Lord Althorp stated afterwards that he was not aware of the necessity of these changes till after he had entered the house on the 27th; and the adjournment seems to have arisen from the fear that the retirement of these ministers would bring along with it the resignation of the whole. An address was got up and presented to Earl Grey by a great number of the ministerial adherents in the commons, entreating his lordship to retain his place; but though, in reply he announced his intention of making every personal sacrifice that might be required of him in support of the principles of the administration, he admitted that much embarrassment, as well as mischief, was produced by the reckless desire of innovation. The embarrassment of ministers was rendered still greater by the king himself, who, in reply to an address presented to him by the Irish bishops on the 28th of May, on behalf of the Irish church, remarked with peculiar emphasis:—"I now remember you have a right to require of me to be resolute in defence of the church. I have been, by the circumstances of my life and by conviction, led to support toleration to the utmost extent of which it is justly capable; but toleration must not be suffered to go into licentiousness: it has its bounds, which it is my duty, and which I am resolved to maintain. I am, from the deepest conviction, attached to the pure Protestant faith, which this church, of which I am the temporal head, is the human means of diffusing and preserving in this land. I cannot forget what was the course of events that placed my family on the throne which I now fill. These events were consummated in a revolution, which was rendered necessary, and which was effected, not, as has sometimes been most erroneously stated, merely for the sake of the temporal liberties of the people, but for the preservation of their religion. It was for the defence of the religion of the country that the settlement of the crown was made which has placed me in the situation which I now fill; and that religion, and the church of England and Ireland, the prelates of which are now before me, it is my fixed purpose, determination, and resolution to maintain. The present bishops, I am quite satisfied, have never been excelled at any period of the history of our church by any of their predecessors in learning, piety, or zeal in the discharge of their high duties. If there are any of the inferior arrangements in the discipline of the church—which, however, I greatly doubt—that require amendment, I have no distrust of the readiness and ability of the prelates now before me to correct such things; and to you, I trust, they will be left to correct, with your authority unimpaired and unshackled."



COMMISSION ISSUED TO INQUIRE INTO THE STATE OF THE IRISH CHURCH.

On the 2nd of June, when the house reassembled, Lord Althorp stated that Mr. Ward's motion had compelled ministers to take up the question of the Irish church; and he informed the house that his majesty had appointed a commission of inquiry into the state of church property and church affairs generally in Ireland. This commission, he said, was to be a lay commission; and it was to visit the different parishes and districts throughout Ireland; to inquire on the spot into the number of Protestants in each parish; whether that number was stationary, increasing, or declining; whether it was a benefice, or if a parish forming part of a union; the distance and number of churches and chapels; the situation of the clergyman, how paid, and whether resident or non-resident; the times which divine service was or had been performed; the number of Protestants attending such service; and whether that attendance was stationary, on the increase, or declining. Similar inquiries were to be made in each parish and district with respect to Roman Catholics, and to Dissenters of every description, as well as to the number and the nature of schools in each parish. The commissioners were further to make minute inquiries in all parishes, touching other matters connected with the Irish church or church property, and to report thereupon. Lord Althorp, after making these statements, said that Mr. Ward's motion went to pledge the house that the amount of church property in Ireland was beyond the wants of that establishment; and next, that parliament had a right to regulate the distribution of church property, and to determine upon the reduction of the Irish church revenues as now established by law. He was of opinion that the house should legislate deliberately upon so grave a question, and he trusted that Mr. Ward would withdraw his motion, and feel satisfied with what government had done. Mr. Ward, however, refused to withdraw his motion: he must press, he said, for a recognition of the principle, because, from what was passing around him, he was afraid that the present ministers would not long continue in office. Lord Althorp then moved the previous question, principally on the ground that, of all questions, this was one which most required much previous inquiry and detailed information. Mr. Hume, and Colonels Davies and Evans supported the original resolution, declaring that the shuffling mode of proceeding adopted by government in regard to this question, rendered it impossible to repose confidence in ministers. After a long debate the amendment, however, was carried by a majority of three hundred and ninety-six against one hundred and twenty. The majority would have been still larger, had not a considerable number of conservative members, unwilling to wear even the appearance of tampering with the question, left the house before the division. The subject was brought before the lords on the 6th of June, by the Earl of Wicklow, who moved an address to his majesty for a copy of the commission, a motion which Earl Grey said he would not oppose. Many of the peers embraced this opportunity of stating their objections to the commission, contending that the measures on which ministers appeared to have resolved would end in the ruin of the church. Concession, it was said, could not stop here; it must go on from step to step, till nothing was left to be conceded. Earl Grey denied that he and his colleagues looked forward to anything that could be justly called spoliation of the church; they contemplated a great alteration, but nothing more.



IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

In the meantime ministers had been proceeding with a bill for the amendment of the tithe system in Ireland, founded on principles which should extinguish tithe altogether as a payment to be demanded in kind, and should lay the burden, directly at least, on a different class of payers. The provisions of the intended measure were explained on the 20th of February, by Mr. Littleton, the Irish secretary, in a committee of the whole house, met for the purpose of considering the portion of the king's speech relating to this subject. Government, he said, proposed in the first place, that from and after the month of November next, composition for tithe should cease in Ireland, and in lieu thereof a land-tax should be imposed, payable to the crown, and to be collected and managed by the commissioners of woods and forests, of the same amount as the tithe-payment now exigible, and to be paid by the same parties who at present were liable. In the second place, he said, ministers proposed that this land-tax should be redeemable at the end of five years, by all who had a substantive interest in the estate. Thirdly, they proposed, he said, that so much of the land-tax as remained unredeemed on the 1st of November, 1839, should be converted into a real charge, equal to four-fifths of the land-tax, and payable by the owner of the first estate of inheritance in the land, who should be entitled to recover the whole amount over against his tenantry; these rent-charges would be redeemable or saleable for the best price to be had, not being less than the consideration for redemption of land-tax. In the fourth place, ministers proposed that the tithe-owners should be paid by warrants issued by the ecclesiastical commissioners for Ireland, and addressed to the commissioners of woods and forests: such payments to be of the amount of the compositions to which the tithe-owners might be severally entitled, subject to a deduction for the trouble, loss, and expense of collection. Finally, ministers proposed that on redemption of the land-tax or sale of rent-charges taking place, the payments by warrants were to cease; and that the redemption or purchase-money should be paid over to the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, and to yield an interest of 2 1/4d. per diem. The money was to be drawn out from time to time, and invested in land, for the benefit of the tithe-owner entitled to the principal money. The great object of the measure, Mr. Littleton explained, was, if possible, to invest the produce of the land-tax and rent-charge in land, so as to give the tithe-owner L80 in land for every L100 tithe to which he had a claim. Where clergymen had already agreed to compositions, they would get tax to the same amount, redeemable on the same terms as in other cases; clergymen would, indeed, he said, be probably gainers of five per cent, by the change. Mr. Littleton concluded with moving the following resolution: "That it is the opinion of this committee, that composition for tithes in Ireland ought to be abolished on and after the 1st day of November in the present year, in consideration of an annual land-tax to be granted to his majesty, payable by the persons who would have been liable to such composition for tithes, and of equal amount; that such tax shall be redeemable; and that out of the produce provision be made in land or money for the indemnification of the persons entitled to such composition." The moderate members reserved their opinions until the details of the measure should be more fully before the house; but Messrs. O'Connell, O'Conner, Shiel, Grattan, and others of the same class, attacked it with unmeasured violence. The bill did not abolish tithe, and therefore it was not a bill to suit their notions. Of all the delusions which had ever been practised, they said, this was the most gross. Did ministers, they asked, think so meanly of the people of Ireland as to imagine that a change of name would be mistaken for a change of the thing, or that tithes would become less odious by being called a land-tax or an annuity? The people of Ireland objected not merely to the amount of tithes paid, but to the application of the funds thence arising: the objection to tithes was double, and now that objection would mix itself with rents. The landlords of Ireland must now look to themselves, for the principle upon which opposition to tithes had hitherto been conducted would forthwith be applied to rents: the Irish people would not regard the present measure as the smallest alleviation of their misery. Mr. O'Connell proposed that two-thirds of the existing tithes should be abolished, the remaining third being left as a quit-rent on the land; and after providing for the life-interest of present incumbents, he said, he would apply the produce to relieving the landlord from grand-jury assessments, to the support of charities, and to other public purposes. Mr. Barron proposed that the tithe levied, to which he did not object, should be restored in part to the poor, they originally having had an interest in it. Mr. Grattan proposed a third scheme: he wished parliament to recognise the liability of property in Ireland to contribute to a fund for the support of religion and charity, but he wished also that such a fund should be different in collection and lighter in its amount than that now raised by the system of tithes. Lord John Russell characterised Mr. O'Connel's plan as one of direct robbery and spoliation, which would be advantageous to none but landowners. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and nineteen against forty-two. A bill founded upon it was then brought in; and on moving the second reading on the 2nd of May, Mr. Littleton mentioned certain alterations which had been introduced into the measure, evidently for the purpose of conciliating Irish members. The principal changes were that instead of a varying rate of deduction on account of the trouble and expense of collecting, there should be one uniform deduction of fifteen per cent, to tithe-owners, to be increased two and a half in cases where landlords had already taken upon themselves the payment of compositions; and that when leases of tithes had been made to the possessors of lands, the rent reserved on such leases or the composition, whichever was the smaller in amount, should be the measure of the land-tax; but the incumbent lessee was to receive the amount of the rent, subject to a reasonable charge for deficiency, the deficiency being made good out of the funds arising from the deductions. But no change could conciliate the Irish members: their opposition continued not only unrelaxed, but it even increased in violence. No plan, indeed, would have been acceptable to them which did not recognise the principle of despoiling the Protestant church. The new bill, they contended, would be as inefficient to tranquillise Ireland as its predecessors had been; and that a new insurrection act and an additional army would be necessary. The second reading, from the hostility of the Irish members, was not carried without long debates and various manouvres; and even the conservative members aided in delaying the measure. Their objection to it was not that it left too much to the clergy, but that it took too much from them. They deemed it necessary, however, to support ministers, in order to prevent worse measures from being brought forward. It was their belief that the money to be secured by the present measure was to be applied exclusively to the purposes of the church. This belief was somewhat shaken by Lord John Russell, who stated that he understood the bill to be one for securing a certain fund appropriated to religious and charitable purposes; and if parliament found it was not so applied, it would be its duty to consider of a new appropriation. His own opinion was, he said, that the revenues of the church of Ireland were too large for the religious and moral instruction of the persons belonging to that church, and for the safety of the church itself. When, therefore, this property was once successfully vindicated against those who unjustly withheld it, he would be prepared to do justice to Ireland, for if ever a people had reason to complain of a grievance it was the people of Ireland, in relation to the present appropriation of tithes. These sentiments were hailed by some of the Irish members as announcing an approaching concession of all their demands, while others who thought differently complained that, if such were the intentions of government, they had been induced by a false belief to receive the bill with favour, even at the sacrifice of some of their own convictions. On a division, the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of two hundred and fifty against fifty-four, the greater part of the minority being Irish members.

When the bill went into committee, lengthy debates ensued, and several important alterations were introduced into it from the opposition encountered. Thus the enemies of the Protestant church had loudly declaimed against the provision by which the redeemed land-tax was to be vested in land, and the land vested in the tithe-owner; and in consequence of this opposition that part of the bill which invested the revenues of the church in land, and consequently the redemption clauses were dropped. The composition was to be converted into a land-tax payable to the crown by the same parties who were now liable for the composition. The amount so collected was to be paid to the tithe-owners, subject to a deduction of three per cent. This state of things was to continue five years, at the end of which period four-fifths of the land-tax was to be converted into a rent-charge to be imposed on the owners of estates of inheritance, who should have the power of recovering it from their tenants, and all others who were primarily liable under the existing composition laws. The amount of these rent-charges was to be received by the crown, and to be paid by the crown to the tithe-owners, subject to a further reduction of two and a half per cent. for the expense of collection. Another objection to the bill had been that under the composition-acts, the tithe had been valued too high, and the payers determined to pay no tithe, and had even failed to attend the commissions by whom the composition had been struck. Effect was now given to this objection by the insertion of a provision conferring a power of appeal against the valuation of the amount of tithe-composition in certain cases and under certain restrictions. All the concessions made, however, failed to conciliate the Irish members. What was required by them was, a legislative declaration to the effect that the tithe should be diverted from Protestant religious purposes. On the 23rd of June, Mr. O'Connell moved as an instruction to the committee, "that after any funds which should be raised in Ireland in lieu of tithes had been so appropriated as to provide suitably, considering vested interests and spiritual wants, for the Protestants of the established church of Ireland, the surplus which remained should be appropriated to purposes of public utility." This motion was seconded by Mr. Hume, and it led to another long debate, in which all the usual topics were again urged on both sides. This resolution, however, was lost by a majority of three hundred and sixty to ninety, and on the 30th of June the order of the day was moved for going into committee. This step was prefaced by the announcement of new and extensive alterations in the bill. It was now proposed to offer an inducement to the imposition of voluntary rent charges, by exacting that, in any case where the owner of the first perpetual estate in the land should be willing to subject his estate to a rent-charge in lieu of land-tax, and should declare his intention to that effect before the 1st of November, 1836, the land-tax should then cease, and his property should become liable to a rent-charge, which should be a sum equal to the interest at three and a half per cent, on the amount of the land-tax multiplied by four-fifths of the number of years' purchase which the land might be fairly worth. Mr. Littleton said he thought that the landowners should be subject to no greater interest than three and a half per cent, on the amount of the land-tax thus determined by the proportion of years' purchase of the land, but that the difference between the amount of the rent-charge and the amount of the land-tax should not be less than twenty per cent, or more than forty per cent, on the amount of such land-tax. The difference, he continued, between the bonus given to the landlord and the deduction made from the tithe-owner, which deduction was to remain as originally proposed, would produce a considerable deficiency in the funds accruing to the commissioners of land revenue. It was proposed at first to make up this deficiency in the first instance from the consolidated fund, and to repay it from the perpetuity purchase-fund in the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners under the act of last session. Finally, in all cases where a rent-charge should not have been voluntarily created before the expiry of five years, a rent-charge equal to four-fifths of the land-tax would be compulsorily imposed. Mr. O'Connell taunted ministers with weak and vacillating conduct, and insisted that the bill should not go into committee till it had been printed with the new clauses. The bill, he argued, was no longer the same: it had been altered again and again; eight additional clauses not originally contained in it, had already been inserted, and now came a fresh quantity of matter. Familiar as he was with the subject, he was not sure that he understood the new alterations, and he was quite sure that nine-tenths of the members did not understand them. Messrs, Stanley and Shaw joined Mr. O'Connell in thinking that some postponement was reasonable and necessary. Mr. Stanley said that it would be more decent to give time for the great alterations in view, and the deviations from the principles formerly adopted to be deliberately considered, after the bill should be again printed and put into the hands of members. The objection to proceeding with the bill was so forcible that Mr. Stanley's proposal was acceded to, and the committee was postponed. On the 4th of July, the house having gone into committee on another bill connected with the Irish church, Mr. Littleton explained more in detail the mode of fixing the bonus to be given to the landlords who submitted to voluntary rent-charges and the financial effects of it on the consolidated fund. He moved "that for any deficit which might arise in the sums accruing to the commissioners of woods and forests out of the land-tax or rent-charges, payable for the composition of ecclesiastical tithes in Ireland, to the payment of which the consolidated fund was pledged, that fund should be indemnified from the revenues in the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners, and out of the perpetuity purchase-fund, placed at their disposal by the act of last session, entitled the Irish church temporalities act." After a few words from Messrs. O'Connell and Hume, and some other members, Mr. Stanley attacked the measure and the proceedings of his former colleagues in a vehement harangue. He opposed the resolution, he said, because it was both impolitic and dishonest; because it was at variance with the great principle, which for the last three or four years it had been the object of government to abolish, namely, the final extinction of tithes in Ireland by means of redemption; and because it seemed to him to be the commencement of a new system of plunder, and that too by a system of plunder not characterised by the straightforward course which bold offenders followed, but marked with that timidity, that want of dexterity, which led to the failure of the unpractised shoplifter. He believed that government was committing great injustice, and would yet fail in its aim; that the country was against this injustice, and that Ireland after it had been perpetrated would not be more tranquil; and therefore he would take the sense of the committee on the resolution now proposed. Lord Althorp replied to Mr. Stanley, and vindicated the resolution from the charge of spoliation. He did not see, he said, how it could be spoliation to take property not from a corporation, but from a mass of different corporations, and apply it to other purposes, if, in doing this, he was giving security to the church. Mr. Hume said he believed in his conscience that ministers were afraid of their late colleague, and intimated his intention of acting with him. He moved an amendment the effect of which would be to re-enact the 147th clause of the act of last session, by substituting for the original resolution the following:—"That the surplus monies to the credit of the ecclesiastical commissioners in the perpetuity purchase-fund, to be kept by the said ecclesiastical commissioners pursuant to an act of last session of parliament, should be applicable to such purposes, for the adjustment and settlement of tithes in Ireland, as by an act of parliament of this session should be provided." This amendment gave rise to a lengthy and sharp debate, but it was thrown out by a large majority, and the ministerial resolution was then carried by two hundred and thirty-five votes against one hundred and seventy-one. At this stage, however, the progress of the bill was arrested for a time by circumstances to which it becomes necessary to advert, those circumstances being calculated by their moral and political effects on the composition of government, and on the relations of parties, to exercise a great influence on the spirit of all subsequent measures.



RENEWAL OF THE IRISH COERCION BILL.

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

In the preceding session it had been found necessary to pass what was termed the coercion bill—a bill intended to put down that insurrectionary violence and combination which filled Ireland with crime and confusion. This act was to expire in August; and ministers, acting upon information received from various parts of Ireland, had determined to propose its renewal, omitting those parts that related to the trial of offenders, in certain cases, by courts-martial. There were, however, other provisions in the bill which the agitators of Ireland viewed with still greater dislike, they interfering with their own influence, by preventing those meetings which enabled them to work on the ignorance and passions of the misguided multitude. To escape from these restrictions was to Mr. O'Connell and his followers an object of greater importance than that the multitude whom they misled should be tried only by the regular tribunals of the country—that the peasant should have the benefit of the jury, or of an investigation by the civil magistrate. The lord-lieutenant of Ireland had recommended that the whole act should be renewed, with the exception of the clause relative to courts-martial; but on the 23rd of June, Earl Grey received a communication from him, stating that the provision against public meetings might also be omitted. What influence had been used with the Marquis Wellesley subsequently became the subject of much discussion. It appeared that certain members of the cabinet had been corresponding with him without the knowledge of Earl Grey, and that the object of their correspondence had been, not to insure more tranquillity in Ireland, but to smooth the way of ministers by making concessions to O'Connell and his adherents. On discovering this, Earl Grey, who dissented from such views, immediately wrote to the lord-lieutenant to reconsider the subject, taking nothing into account but what was fitting for Ireland. Lord Wellesley, however, still adhered to his recommendation, more especially if, by means of such omission, an extension of the term for the act could be obtained. The subject was now brought before the cabinet, and its members were found to be divided in opinion thereon. The minority, consisting of Lord Althorp, and Messrs. Grant, Rice, Ellice, and Abercromby, objected to a renewal of the clauses in question, though they acquiesced in the determination of the majority, that the bill should be proposed in the form desired by the premier. On the second reading of the bill, Lord Durham objected to the clauses regarding public meetings, when Earl Grey declared his dissent from him to be absolute; if he could not have proposed the bill with these clauses, he would not have proposed it at all. Without them, he said, the bill would be ineffectual, impolitic, and cruel: it would punish the miserable victims of delusion, and let those escape who supplied to Ireland the fuel of agitation and disturbance. In these sentiments the lord-chancellor coincided; the clauses, he said, were as necessary as any others. Attention must be paid to the cause of excitement, as well as to the parties excited; the clauses regarding public meetings no doubt were a suspension of rights; but so were all the other clauses of the bill, to which no objection had been raised. The second reading of the bill was carried without any serious opposition, and the committee was fixed for the 7th of July; but in the meantime disclosures were made in the commons, which stopped the progress of the bill in its present shape, and which led to the resignation of Earl Grey.



RESIGNATION OF EARL GREY, ETC.

Instead of meeting O'Connell with bold defiance, Mr. Littleton, the Irish secretary, had committed the fatal error of secretly negotiating with him, soothing him, and even entrusting him with the views and determinations of the cabinet, giving him assurances, or encouraging expectations, for which he had no authority. He seems to have expected some communication from the lord-lieutenant regarding the omission of the clauses; and he resolved, before the ministers or the cabinet had made any decision known to him, to communicate to O'Connell, under the seal of secrecy and confidence, the sentiments of the Irish government, and to communicate it as ensuring a similar determination on the part of government. He spoke of the propriety of acting thus to Lord Althorp, who said that he saw no harm in it; but, at the same time, entreated him to use extreme caution in his communication, and by no means to commit himself in what he said. Under these circumstances Mr. Littleton sent for Mr. O'Connell on the 20th of June, and made the desired communication, with an assurance that only a short measure for repressing agrarian disturbances would be proposed: and, also, that if the coercion bill was again thought necessary, he would not introduce it. In consequence of this interview, Mr. O'Connell promised his assistance in putting down disturbances; and he actually withdrew the repeal candidate whom he had started for the county of Wexford. To the dismay of Mr. Littleton, however, the premier and majority of the cabinet determined to retain the clause respecting public meetings, and he was compelled to belie his confidential communication. He had told Mr. O'Connell that he would not be the person to introduce the bill in that shape: and yet he did not resign when it was determined that the bill should be introduced in that shape alone. At the same time he communicated to Mr. O'Connell that his hopes could not be realised; but begged him to take no public notice of this until he should have seen Earl Grey's speech introducing the bill. Mr. O'Connell replied to him, that if he did not resign, he would be guilty of deception; and Mr. Littleton answered, "Say nothing of that to-day," or, "Wait till to-morrow." But with regard to the fact, whether such an answer was or was not given, both O'Connell and Mr. Littleton averred that what the other stated was not consistent with truth. Be this as it may, O'Connell thought he was not bound to secrecy; and on the 3rd of July, two days after the bill had been introduced in the lords, he asked Mr. Littleton whether it was true that the renewal of the coercion bill in its present shape had been advised and called for by the Irish government? Mr. Littleton answered that this was an unusual inquiry to make respecting a bill not before the house; but he would say that the introduction of the bill had the entire sanction of the Irish government. Mr. O'Connell again put his question, as to whether the bill had been called for by the Irish government? and not obtaining a more direct answer, he said, "I now ask the Irish secretary if it his intention to bring the bill forward in this house?" Mr. Littleton replied, "It will be for the government to decide as to its introduction here when the proper time arrives; but, whoever may bring in the bill, I shall vote for it." Mr. O'Connell then said, "Then I have been exceedingly deceived by him;" and the Irish secretary was driven to the necessity of stating the whole matter, and an angry discussion ensued. Two days afterwards Mr. Littleton tendered his resignation; but it was refused, his colleagues, as Lord Althorp stated in the house, valuing his services too highly to dispense with them on such grounds. The coercion bill passed through committee in the lords on the 7th of July, and on the same evening, in the house of commons, Lord Althorp, for the purpose of announcing its approach, presented papers relative to the state of Ireland, which he moved should be printed. This led to a discussion on the sentiments of the cabinet, and the change of opinion manifested by the Marquis Wellesley. Mr. O'Connell moved an amendment, that the papers should be referred to a select committee; and this being rejected by a large majority, he gave notice for the production of so much of the lord-lieutenant's correspondence as would explain the reason why he opposed a renewal of the coercion act on or about the 20th of June. Hitherto there had been no symptoms of change in the ministry, however unfortunate might be the figure which they had been compelled to make. They had even refused to accept the resignation of Mr. Littleton, whose indiscreet negotiations had been the source of all their embarrassments. Lord Althorp, however, seems now to have come to the conclusion that ministers would not be able to carry the bill through in its original form, for, on the very night of this discussion, he sent in his resignation, and persisted in retiring from office. The resignation of the chancellor of the exchequer involved that of Earl Grey. The prime minister, convinced that it was impossible for him to proceed when deprived of Lord Althorp's assistance, gave in his own resignation, which his majesty accepted. By the retirement of the head of the cabinet, the cabinet itself was dissolved; but no other resignation followed. The members of the old cabinet, indeed, resolved to remain together, and selected a new head; and Lord Melbourne, the home-secretary, was elevated to this post, and kissed hands on the 16th of July as first lord of the treasury. Lord Melbourne's first act was to inform the house that ministers did not intend to proceed with the coercion bill now before it, but that another bill, omitting certain clauses contained in the former, would immediately be brought into the house of commons. This announcement produced a vehement discussion, in which the conduct of government and some of its individual members was assailed by the Dukes of Wellington and Buckingham, and several other peers, who maintained, that since the Revolution, no instance had occurred of such inconsistency and tergiversation. A modified coercion bill, however, was introduced on the 18th of July; and having been rapidly carried through the commons, passed the lords on the 29th, under a strong protest, signed by the Dukes of Cumberland and Wellington, with twenty-one other peers. This modified bill re-enacted only those parts of the former which referred to the proclamation of districts. The lord-lieutenant was to have power to proclaim any district which he thought necessary, and in these districts any meeting, not convened by the high sheriff of the county, was to be held illegal. No person was to leave his house between sunset and sunrise, except on lawful business; and constables were to have power to make people show themselves at any hour of the night when they might call at their houses. The operations of the bill were to cease on the 1st of August, 1835.



REJECTION OF THE IRISH TITHE QUESTION BY THE PEERS.

Ministers having thus provided for the tranquillity of Ireland, by what they considered enactments of sufficient energy and severity, now returned to their tithe bill, which, according to them, was to be the great recompense of the temporary submission to a strained power of the law. Accordingly, on the 29th of July, the order of the day was read for the house resolving itself into a committee on the tithe bill. Mr. O'Connell moved as an amendment that the house should resolve itself into a committee that day six months. He did so, he said, on the ground that it was preposterous to go into a committee on a bill containing one hundred and twenty-two clauses at that period of the session, on the ground of the demerits of the bill itself, and on the ground that it would be time enough to legislate after the report of the commission which had been issued should have been received, a regular plan arranged and submitted, with all its details, and all necessary information, to a select committee composed of men of all parties. This amendment, however, obtained only fourteen votes in its favour, though others were carried in committee, which went to alter the operation and consequences of the bill. Thus Mr. O'Connell moved an amendment, the object of which was to relieve the tithe-payer immediately to the extent of forty per cent.; and in consequence of the accommodating language and coy resistance of ministers, it was carried by a majority of eighty-two to thirty-three. Additional concessions were also made in the committee; and even Mr. Shiel remarked that Ireland ought to be grateful. Such, indeed, was the departure from the original principles and arrangements of the bill that one hundred and eleven out of one hundred and seventy-two clauses were expunged. Thus altered, the bill was read a third time, and passed on the 5th of August.

On the second reading of the bill in the lords, the peers were given to understand by Lord Melbourne that, if it was lost, government would propose no other grant to relieve the Irish clergy. He admitted, he said, that there might be reason for viewing with jealousy and distrust the quarter whence certain alterations made in the bill, subsequently to this introduction, proceeded; but, at the same time he did not think the arrangement bad for the church. The tithe for the future was to be received by the crown, and paid by the landlord, who, in return for the burden thus imposed on him, was to have a deduction of two-fifths or forty per cent, of the original composition. The incomes of the clergy, however, were not to bear the whole deduction, which was only to be twenty-two and a half per cent, on them; that is, twenty per cent, for increased security, and two and a half per cent, for the expenses of collection. The incumbents would, in fact, receive L79 10s. for every L100 without trouble, without the risk of bad debts, and without the odium which had hitherto attended the collection of tithe property. Another consequence was that the clergy would be relieved from the payment of sums already advanced to them from the treasury, as that charge would be laid on the landlord. In conclusion, he said that he thought the revision of existing compositions, made under the acts of 1823 and '32, was also a proper enactment. The bill underwent a complete discussion—the Conservatives seeing no security for the rights and interests of the Irish clergy in its provisions as now altered; while their opponents thought that it would be much more advantageous to the clerical body to obtain the sum proposed without risk, than to recover a smaller—if they recovered any at all—through scenes of blood and slaughter. The Earl of Ripon and the Duke of Richmond pursued a middle course—they wished the bill to go into committee in order to restore it to its original state; if unsuccessful there, they would vote against the third reading. The lords, however, were determined to reject it forthwith; and on a division the bill was thrown out by a majority of one hundred and eighty-nine against one hundred and twenty-two. By the rejection of the bill, the Irish clergy was thrown on the charity of the British public, who liberally responded to their demand: a large subscription was made to relieve their distresses.



STATE OF ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTIONS AND THE CLAIMS OF DISSENTERS.

It was not the Catholics alone who regarded the Protestant establishment with a jealous eye; there were discontents and heart-burnings, also, among dissenters. The great majority of the people of England adhered to the established church, yet the dissenters formed a numerous body, possessing in many instances great respectability, wealth, and influence. As a body they were impressed with the idea that, by the church being supported as a national institution, they were stamped with a mark of inferiority. Acting upon this impression, they very naturally employed the power with which they were now invested to bring down the established church to the same level on which they themselves stood; to annihilate all the rights, powers, and privileges which belonged to its members; and, by depriving it of all support from the funds of the state, convert it into a self-constituted religious community. Their great objects were to obtain those privileges from which they were excluded, and to be relieved from the necessity of supporting an establishment in the advantages of which they did not participate. The occasion was favourable for the enterprise, in consequence of the unsettled and uncertain state in which things stood, and the hopes held out by a ministry who seemed disposed to make concessions to all classes of men if they were but importunate. In accordance with their views, various petitions were presented by them to parliament in the beginning of the session, praying to be relieved from church-rates; and in many instances urging the separation of church and state, or recommending the general establishment of the voluntary system. These petitions, however, led to no other result but that of producing a strong expression of opposite opinions, and calling forth numerous anti-petitions, praying parliament to preserve the church inviolate. Ministers declared that they would listen to no proposition for its destruction; but, notwithstanding this, a motion was made by Mr. Rippon, the new member for Gateshead, to expel the bishops from the house of lords. This motion was seconded by Mr. Gillon, a Scotch member; but on a division it was lost by a majority of one hundred and twenty-five against fifty-eight. The minority seems to have been much larger than had been anticipated, for the announcement was hailed with loud cheers.

Among the grievances of which the dissenters complained in their numerous petitions, none were more forcibly insisted on than their practical exclusion from degrees at Oxford and Cambridge, in consequence of its being required, as a preliminary, that they should conform to the church of England, or to subscribe to her articles. As a matter of civil right, they demanded that all religious tests should be abolished, and the universities thrown open for the education and graduation of men of all creeds. Exertions were made by them to get up petitions from the universities, and in one of them they succeeded. On the 21st of March Earl Grey presented, in the house of lords, a petition from certain members of the senate of the University of Cambridge, praying for the abolition by legislative authority of every religious test exacted from members of the university before they proceed to degrees, whether of bachelor, master, or doctor, in arts, law, and physic. On this occasion, as on others when similar petitions were presented, there was much incidental discussion of the merits of the demand. Ministers declared it to be just and proper, and showed an inclination to grant it; but no distinct motion was made on the subject till after the Easter recess. On the 17th of April, however, Colonel Williams moved an address to the king, "requesting his majesty to signify his pleasure to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, that these bodies no longer act under the edicts or letters of James I., 1616; by which he would have all who take any degree in schools to subscribe to the three articles' of the thirty-sixth canon, with the exception of those proceeding to degrees in divinity; nor to require the declaration, namely, 'that I am bona fide a member of the church of England,' nor any subscription or declaration of like effect and import." It was, however, thought for many reasons more advisable to proceed by bill; and Mr. Wood, one of the members for Preston, moved as an amendment for leave to bring in a bill to grant to his majesty's subjects, generally, the right of admission to the English universities, and to equal eligibility to degrees therein, notwithstanding their diversities of religious opinion, degrees in divinity alone excepted. The address was withdrawn; and after a discussion, in which even the introduction of the measure was opposed by Messrs. Goulburn and Estcourt, and Sir R. Inglis, three of the four members for the universities, it was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-five to forty-four. Although the Cambridge petition had been presented in both houses by members of the cabinet, and government had declared its entire concurrence in the prayer of the petitioners, neither the proposition for an address, nor that for a bill, was brought forward by ministers. They were favourable to the measure, however, and supported it by their speeches and votes. At the same time they wished that neither parliament nor the government should be pressed or hurried to intermeddle, before they could take up the matter with the prospect of terminating it in the best and most satisfactory manner. They hoped, they said, that as a portion of one of the universities was already inclined to it, the object, by allowing some time for consideration, might be effected with the concurrence of those learned bodies, and in a much better form, and to much better purpose, than if they were made reluctantly to act under the compulsion of a statute. That hope, however, was vain. Before the bill was brought in, the sentiments of the great mass in the two universities were fully expressed. It was soon discovered that the sixty-three petitioners at Cambridge, by offending the honest principles of many, and the party-spirit of others, had raised a storm which no argument or explanation could allay. Meetings were almost daily held, pamphlets were distributed on every hand, the public press joined in the contest, and the university pulpits resounded with the most awful denunciations. During the excitement at Cambridge, a counter-petition was signed by two hundred and fifty-eight members, resident and non-resident, comprising eleven heads of houses, eight professors, and twenty-nine tutors; while a second was signed by seven hundred and fifty-five under-graduates and bachelors of arts. These were presented on the 21st of April by the Duke of Gloucester in the lords, as chancellor of the university, and by Mr. Goulburn in the commons, as one of its representatives. A similar document was presented from the university of Oxford by Mr. Estcourt, and on the 9th of May a second petition was sent from Cambridge, signed by one thousand members of the senate who had not signed the other.

Although Mr. Wood brought his bill into the house soon after the Easter holidays, it was not till the 20th of June that he was enabled to move the second reading. Mr. Estcourt proposed as an amendment that it should be read that day six months. Mr. Herbert seconded the amendment. Messrs. Paten, Poulter, and Ewart spoke in favour of the bill, contending that the alteration was necessary, no less for the benefit of the universities, than in justice to the dissenters. By the present system the latter were impeded in their progress to the bar, by having to keep terms for five years instead of three; and were prevented from becoming fellows of the college of physicians, for want of academical degrees. These were positive and weighty grievances, which ought, it was urged, to be remedied. Mr. Spring Rice complained that it was unfair to treat the bill, not according to its own deserts, but according to measures which might or might not be immediately connected with that now under discussion. He asked what could be more inconsistently unjust than the practice of Cambridge, where dissenters were admitted so far as instruction was concerned, but then excluded from everything to which instruction ought to lead? They were admitted to the fullest and most complete course of study until the twelfth term, when, on being brought into fair competition with their fellow-students, the odious principle of exclusion intervened: the dissenter was told that, however obedient he had been to college regulations, however high the eminence he had acquired, still he would not be allowed the badge or symbol of his acquirements, simply because he was a dissenter. The house, indeed, had the benefit of experience; for in Dublin dissenters were admitted to degrees, though excluded from fellowships, and all participation in the internal management of the university. And what mighty mischiefs, he asked, had followed the admission? Was the university less orthodox in its principles? or less a Protestant foundation than before? Had the zeal of its public instructors been lessened, or their sphere of usefulness narrowed by this interference? It should be remembered that those on whom the exclusions fell were men of active and stirring spirits, men who wrould excite and probably guide the councils of those with whom they agreed in opinion. It had been said that the dissenters ought to found universities of their own. He concurred in that argument; but the English universities would not allow them to do this. When they proposed such a step, in order to educate the youth of their own persuasion, and reward them with those honours which the university denied, and thus sought to secure to themselves academical honours and privileges, the universities stepped forward and said:—"We will not only exclude you from our own seats, but will also prevent you from enjoying the advantages and privileges of a university of your own." This double ground of exclusion and prohibition was most undefensible. The colonial secretary was answered by Mr. Goulburn, who argued that in proportion as the friends of the bill enforced the danger of excluding dissenters, they rendered manifest the ruinous consequences of concession. If the dissenters really deemed it so great a hardship to be deprived of the empty honour of a degree, what would they say, if they were admitted to degrees, and found a bar raised against their admission to college emoluments and distinctions? Sir Robert Peel characterised the bill as an enactment intended to give to Jews, infidels, and atheists—to the man who professed some religion, and to the man who professed none—a statutable right of demanding admission into our universities. Sir E. Inglis and Lord Sandon opposed the bill, contending that it was impossible to establish any system of religious education in institutions into which persons professing different religious opinions were admitted. Lord Althorp, on the other hand, supported the bill, disclaiming at the same time any hostility to the established church. On a division the second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-one against one hundred and seventy-four. In the committee the speaker gave his decided opposition to the bill; and some amendments having been made, it wras read a third time, and passed by a majority of one hundred and sixty-four against seventy-five. The bill was conducted in the lords by the Earl of Radnor, who moved the second reading on the 1st of August. The Duke of Gloucester, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, denounced the bill as being not only uncalled for, but most unjust and mischievous. His royal highness concluded by moving as an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. He was followed by the Duke of Wellington, Chancellor of the University of Oxford, who sustained the same view of the question. The Earl of Carnarvon spoke against the bill; the Archbishop of Canterbury maintained the same side. Lord Melbourne admitted that the subject was surrounded with difficulties; that he did not altogether approve of the bill; but, notwithstanding this, the question being brought before the house, he would vote for the second reading of the bill, because he thought a question of such magnitude and importance was entitled to the fullest and most anxious consideration. Lord-chancellor Brougham supported the bill, because he thought it went to remove a practical grievance, without affecting the discipline of the universities or the safety of the church. The discussion was closed by the Bishop of Exeter, who, in a long and ingenious speech, opposed the bill in all its bearings. On a division, the amendment to reject the bill was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-seven against eighty-five.

Another grievance of which the dissenters complained was, that they were liable to church-rates—that is, they were taxed towards the expenses of the established church. On the 21st of April Lord Althorp brought forward his plan for the mitigation of this evil in the shape of a resolution: "that, after a fixed time, church-rates should cease and determine; and, in lieu thereof, a sum not exceeding L250,000 should be granted from the land-tax to be applied to the expenses of the fabrics of churches and chapels in such manner as parliament should direct." He said that his intention was not merely to relieve dissenters, but likewise to provide for the fabrics of the church. This plan, however, did not suit the views of either churchmen or dissenters. The friends of the dissenters, indeed, immediately attacked it with unmeasured violence. Mr. Hume moved that all the words in the resolution should be expunged, except those which declared "that church-rates should cease and determine." The proposal, it was said, was a contemptible juggle, founded on the old financial principle that if money were taken out of the pockets of the people by indirect means, they would not be sensible of their loss. On the other hand, the friends of the church objected to the plan because it questioned the rights of the church, infringed on some of them, and left others on a foundation less sure than before; and all this without any reason in principle, and confessedly without any good result in practice. Lord Althorp, in his reply, expressed much surprise that the dissenters should receive the proposition so ungraciously; but expressed his determination to persevere in bringing it forward. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and fifty-six against one hundred and forty; but notwithstanding this majority, and the certainty of ultimate success, ministers proceeded no further with the measure. Churchmen considered that one advantage was gained, in the dissenters having been brought to disclose somewhat prematurely the real purposes which they had in view, and to proclaim opinions tending to the complete abolition of a religious establishment. Government were equally unfortunate in another attempt to gratify the dissenters, by allowing them to celebrate the marriage ceremony in their own chapels, and thus escape what was deemed by them a grievous oppression.

The commutation of tithes in England was a subject still more complicated and difficult. It in fact involved so many interests of different kinds, and so many details requiring minute attention, that the adjustment of the question was a work requiring both time, patience, and circumspection. Lord Althorp brought forward the ministerial plan on the 15th of April, and it was contained in the following resolution:—"That it was expedient that the payment of tithes in kind should cease and determine, and that in the several parishes throughout England and Wales there should be substituted in lieu thereof a payment to the parties who might be entitled to such tithe, such payment bearing a fixed proportion to the annual value of all land whence tithe might be payable, that value to be ascertained throughout the several counties at large, striking an average on the parishes in each county; also that all owners of property liable to tithe be at liberty to redeem the same at the rate of twenty-five years' purchase." Lord Althorp then proceeded to develop his plan at great length; but its principles and details were so strongly objected to both by landlords and the clergy that the measure was dropped for the present. Lord Althorp stated as a reason for not going on with it, that he saw, from the state of the public business, and the time which would require to be devoted to the more urgent question of the amendment of the poor-laws, that there was no probability of its being brought to a successful issue before the termination of the session.



POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

One act was carried this session, which, in itself, is sufficient to signalise the administration under whose auspices it was brought forward. Soon after their accession to office the present ministry had issued a commission of inquiry into the state and operation of the poor laws. The inquiries of the commission were to be directed towards ascertaining what was the cause why, in some parts of the country, the poor-laws were considered a benefit by parishes, while in others their operation had been ruinous and destructive. The commissioners had made their report, and an abstract of the evidence which they had taken had been printed in the course of the preceding session. Government was so strongly impressed by that report, with a conviction of the evils produced by the system in many districts of the country, that they resolved to propose a remedy to parliament. On the 17th of April, therefore, Lord Althorp moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the poor. The necessity of interference was maintained on the ground that the present administration of those laws tended directly and indirectly to the destruction of all property, whilst their continued operation was fatal even to the labouring classes whom they had been intended to benefit. It was the abuse of the system, rather than the system itself, which was to be apprehended. Its worst abuses, indeed, were scarcely older than the beginning of the present century, and they had originated in measures intended for the benefit of that class of the community to whose interests and welfare they were now most destructively opposed. A feeling at that period prevailed that great discontent existed among the working classes, and a principle was then adopted in legislation, which, though humane and well intended, was found to produce the most baneful consequences. The 36th of George III. laid down the principle that the relief to paupers ought to be given in such a manner as to place them in a situation of comfort. It might have been desirable to place all our countrymen in this situation; but to give relief in the manner prescribed by this statute was rather the duty of private charity than of the public legislature. The effect of this law had been to give the magistrates the power of ordering relief to the poor in their own dwellings, and the principle being followed up, led from bad to worse, until every spark of independence in the breast of the peasantry had been nearly extinguished. The parish must keep them, it was often said; and they did not care to obtain an honest livelihood by the sweat of their brow. The existing state of things had indeed reduced the labouring population in many districts to a state of deplorable misery and distress. It was evident that there were great dangers to be incurred if matters were left as they stood, and that it was absolutely necessary to adopt sounder principles, and to carry them into execution unflinchingly. In fact, there were examples already to be followed. In about one hundred parishes the evils of the system had compelled the inhabitants to adopt an approved mode of administration, and in every instance they had succeeded, although some of them had been completely pauperised. Where, again, the former system still prevailed, cultivation had been abandoned; so heavy was the pressure of rates, and so great the evils of mismanagement. The consequence of this was that the neighbouring parishes were compelled to support the poor; and it was evident that they also would soon be reduced to a similar situation if the system was not soon and effectually altered. It was on the grounds of this mischief, and the necessity of checking it, that Lord Althorp defended the principle of entrusting the poor-laws to a board of commissioners. He admitted that this was an anomalous course of legislation, and that the board would be entrusted with extraordinary powers. This, however, he argued, was rendered unavoidable by the necessity of the case; a discretionary power must be vested somewhere, in order to carry into effect the better principles to be introduced. But before extending any discretionary power, he continued, it would be necessary to fix a day on which the allowance system should cease; and in the bill it would be fixed in some of the summer months, when the labourers were in full employment. The allowance system, he said, was the foundation of almost all other evils; and until it was abolished, any attempt at amending the poor-laws would be nugatory.

The allowance system being abolished, and the central board established, next came the powers of the commissioners. He proposed one uniform system operating over the whole country, in order to obtain which they were to have power to make general rules and orders as to the mode of relief, and for the regulation of workhouses, and the mode of relief afforded therein. As a check against any abuse, every such rule, order, or regulation so proposed by the commissioners would be submitted to the secretary-of-state: forty days were to elapse before it could be brought into operation, and during that period it should be competent, by an order in council, issued for that purpose, to prevent it from being carried into effect. The commissioners would further have power, he said, to make specific rules and orders for the regulation and mode of relief of the poor in separate districts and parishes: to form unions of parishes, in order to make larger districts; to arrange classifications of the poor in the same or different workhouses; to exercise a general control in such unions as might be established without their consent; and to dissolve unions which might now exist. Unions having been formed, each parish in the union would have to maintain its own poor, or contribute to the general fund the proportion of expense which it had hitherto borne by itself. The commissioners would likewise have power to call the attention of parishes and unions to the state of their workhouse establishments, and to suggest to them the propriety of adding to those formed, or of building separate and distinct establishments. Another fertile source of mischief had been the practice of ordering relief to the poor in their own houses. The bill would provide that justices should have no power for the future, thus bringing back the law to the state in which it had been previous to the year 1796. Other features of the bill, he explained, consisted in simplifying the law of settlement and removal; in rendering the mother of an illegitimate child liable for its support, and, for its ailment, to save from imprisonment the putative father to whom she might swear it. The great principles of the proposed plan, therefore, went to stop the allowance system; to deprive the magistracy of the power of ordering out-door relief; to alter, in certain cases, the constitution of parochial vestries; to give large discretionary powers to the commissioners; to simplify the law of settlement and removal; and to render the mother of an illegitimate child liable for its support. The bill by which these principles were to be carried into effect having been brought in, the second reading was opposed by Colonel Evans, one of the members for Westminster, and Sir S. Whalley, one of the members for Marylebone. The latter moved an amendment, that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. It was his opinion, he said, that the bastardy clause, which threw all the burden on the mother, on whom the odium rested already, thus held out a premium to immorality and an inducement to infanticide; and the clauses which effected the law of settlement would of themselves justify the house in throwing out the bill. His great objection, however, was to the board of commissioners. The board was unnecessary, for the principal existing defect consisted in the ratepayers not having sufficient control over the expenditure. If they were only vested with complete control over the poor-law management, the evils of the present system would soon disappear. He doubted whether the house had authority to give powers of the description proposed to any set of men—at all events it was impolitic. The bashaws whom the bill proposed to start into life would be omnipotent; they might do as they pleased, and account for their acts by merely stating it was their pleasure. There were to be no less than thirty-six discretionary powers vested in the commissioners; a degree of authority entrusted to three men of which the country afforded no parallel. Government ought to wait before they undertook any poor-law reform: the report of the commissioners had already led to the correction of many abuses, and time only was required to secure a trial to the greater part, if not all, of the recommendations that report contained. The amendment was seconded by Alderman Wood, and supported by Mr. Walter, a reforming representative of Berkshire. Messrs. Grote and Hume, and Sirs J. Scarlett and Francis Burdett, with other members who spoke on the occasion, all agreed that there was no good reason against the second reading of the bill, though none of them approved it as a whole. The chancellor of the exchequer argued in reply, that nothing had been stated which could be regarded as an ostensible reason for not going into committee; and that when in committee all matters which had been noticed would be open to consideration. The second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and nineteen to twenty. In the committee a discussion took place as regarded the effect of the bill in establishing workhouses, a system which some members disliked; but the clause was retained. Another discussion also took place on the clause which allowed occupiers and owners to vote in vestries, the latter having accumulative votes proportioned to their property. It was objected to as being inconsistent with popular rights and good management; but it was nevertheless retained. The forty-fifth clause provided that it should be lawful for the commissioners, by such orders or regulations as they should think fit, to declare to what extent the relief to be given might be administered out of the workhouse. An amendment was moved, "that no rule or order of the commissioners shall prohibit the guardians of unions from giving relief out of the workhouse, to such of their sick or impotent poor, and to such widows, orphans, and illegitimate children, as they may think fit so to relieve." This amendment, however, was only supported by forty, while one hundred and forty-eight voted against it. In the clauses regarding settlement, settlement by having occupied a tenement, and having been assessed to the poor-rates for one year, and having paid such assessment, was added to settlement by birth and marriage.

The clauses which laid the burden of supporting an illegitimate child on the mother, as if she had been a widow, gave rise to much discussion. Mr. Robinson moved that they should be omitted, he objecting to them chiefly on the ground that they removed the liability from the father. He did not object, he said, to so much of them as repealed certain acts affecting the mother, but to that part which let the father go free. The bill proposed, he said, that in case the woman should be unable to support the child, the liability should rest on the father, or if he were not alive, or being alive and not able to support it, then the liability was to fall on the grandfather or grandmother. Could the house, he asked, seriously entertain propositions of this nature, or consent to pass enactments so contrary to every principle of justice and humanity? Lord Althorp protested against these provisions being discussed as matters of feeling; they should be considered not as they affected one portion of society, but the whole of it; and looking at it in this point of view he was prepared to support this part of the bill as a boon to the female population. He left it as an alternative to the committee, that if this clause was struck out, the bastardy clauses should be wholly severed from the bill, and proceeded with in a future session of parliament. The general feeling in the house seemed to be that the clauses should be struck out, and the matters which they involved made the subject of a separate measure, or that they should be postponed till some middle term should be devised. The majority, however, preferred the latter alternative, and it was decided that the provisions in question should not be expunged. On the 21st of March Mr. Miles proposed a modified clause, which still refused any claim to the mother against the father, and gave no power of demanding security before the child was born; but it exposed him to a claim at the instance of the managers of the poor, in the event of the mother and the child becoming chargeable to the parish. The chancellor of the exchequer said he would have preferred the original provisions of the bill; but he acquiesced in the adoption of the proposed clause, because he saw that the opinion of the house was in its favour. Subsequently clauses were added, disqualifying the commissioners from sitting in parliament; requiring all general orders and regulations to be laid before parliament; and limiting the operation of the act, in so far as regarded the commissioners, to five years. The bill was read a third time and passed on the 1st of July. It was introduced to the lords on the day following, and the second reading was fixed for the 8th of July; but in consequence of the resignation of Earl Grey, it was not again brought forward till the 21st of July. The second reading was moved by the lord-chancellor, who, after giving an historical account of the progress of the poor-laws, pointed out the manner in which they had become the sources of so much evil. The bill found its most violent opponent in Lord Wynford, who moved as an amendment that it be read that day six months. He did not oppose it, he said, on the ground that there was not much in the administration of the poor-laws which required to be corrected, but because he conceived that the remedies proposed by the bill were partly unnecessary and partly inefficient, while some of them were perfectly tyrannical. The Earl of Winchilsea and the Dukes of Richmond and Wellington supported the motion for the second reading, though they did not approve of all the provisions of the bill. The division on the amendment gave seventy-six peers for the second reading, and only thirteen against it. In the committee Lord Alvanley proposed that the bill should be dropped. Lord Wynford urged strong objections to the central board of commissioners, but this was defended by the lord-chancellor, the Earl of Winchilsea, and the Duke of Wellington. The only alteration made in the clauses respecting them and their powers was an addition proposed by the Duke of Wellington, to the effect that they should be bound to keep a record of each letter received, the date of its reception, the person from whom it came, the subject to which it related, and the minute of any answer given to it, or made thereon, and also, where the commissioners differed, of the opinion of each commissioner, and that a copy of such record be transmitted to the secretary-of-state once a year-, or oftener if required. The Bishop of Exeter moved to substitute for the leading enactment in reference to bastardy, "That the father and mother of an illegitimate child, or the survivor of them, shall be required to support such child, and that no parish shall be bound to support such child whilst either parent is able to do so, and that all relief occasioned by the wants of such child shall be considered as relief afforded to the father and mother, or the survivor of them." This amendment, however, was negatived by thirty-eight votes against thirty-four; but the clause itself, being that which the house of commons, on the motion of Mr. Miles, had substituted for the original clause, was likewise rejected. On the third reading the Bishop of Exeter again brought the question before the house, by moving the omission of the clause which provided that any person marrying a woman who had an illegitimate child or children by another man, should be liable to maintain them. The original clause, however, was retained, although by a majority of only eleven, eighty-two voting for and seventy-one against it. Instead of the rejected clause which Mr. Miles had carried in the house of commons, clauses were introduced on the motion of the Duke of Wellington, enacting, that the putative father of any bastard child, so soon as such child became chargeable to the parish by the mother's inability to maintain it, should be liable to reimburse to the parish the expenses of its maintenance until it attained the age of seven years, on his paternity being proved before the quarter-sessions, but not without the testimony of the woman being corroborated by other evidence; that when a woman had had one bastard child, she should obtain no order in a subsequent case; that an order should be operative only till the child attained the age of seven years; that sums to be recovered from the putative father should be recoverable only by attachment or distress; and that he should not, in any case, be liable to imprisonment for costs. Subsequently, several other amendments were made of minor importance, as alterations in the allowance system, and in administering outdoor relief, &c.; and the bill thus altered passed the third reading on the 8th of August, by a majority of forty-five against fifteen. On the 11th of August, when Lord Althorp moved the commons to agree to the lords' amendment, an amendment was moved that they should be read that day six months. This proposal was chiefly supported by those who were opposed to the bill altogether, or who wished it should be delayed till next session; but Lord Althorp declared that if it did not pass, he would not again bring it forward; and the amendment was negatived by a large majority. All the amendments of the lords were then agreed to, with the exception of the omission of the clause which provided for the instruction of pauper children in the religious creed of his surviving parent or god-parent, and entitled dissenting clergymen to visit workhouses at all times, for the purpose of religious instruction, at the desire of any pauper of any sect. This amendment was said to be a violation of the principle of religious liberty, and an insult to the small portion of good feeling towards dissenters which existed in the upper house, and it was rejected. Finally, the amendment of the commons restoring the clause which had been expunged, was agreed to by the lords, and thus the great experiment of a revision and alteration of the poor-laws commenced.

From the great change effected in the poor-laws, no class of men could eventually expect greater relief than the owners and occupiers of lands. At this time, however, the agriculturists longed after means of relief of more immediate, direct, and certain operation. The subject of agricultural distress had, indeed, formed a paragraph in the king's speech, and it was now brought forward by the Marquis of Chandos. On the 21st of February, after ably stating both the local and general causes of the evil, he moved a resolution, "That, in any reduction of national burdens by the remission of taxes, due regard be shown to that distress of the agriculturists which had been alluded to in the speech from the throne." The resolution was supported by Mr. A. Baring, who said, that importunity and clamour, threats of commotion and resistance to the law obtained that which was refused to the patient suffering of the farmer. Several members spoke against the resolution, not meaning to deny that the agriculturists were suffering, but considering the resolution as not likely to lead to any result; and that the means alluded to by those who supported it were neither efficient nor just. Moreover, the supporters of the motion were far from being of one mind as to the manner in which relief ought to be afforded. On a division the resolution was lost by a majority of four only in a very full house. This success induced the noble mover to bring the subject before the house again. On the 7th of July he moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, expressing the deep regret that this house feels at the continuance of the distressed state of the agricultural interests of the country, to which the attention of parliament was especially called in his majesty's most gracious speech from the throne, and humbly to represent the anxious desire of this house that the attention of his majesty's government should be directed, without further delay, to this important subject, with a view to the immediate removal of some portion of those burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of general and local taxation." On a division the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety against one hundred and seventy-four.

On the 17th of March the question of the malt-duty was brought directly before the house by a motion of Mr. Cobbett, that it should cease and determine from and after the 5th of October next. It was rejected by one hundred and forty-two to fifty-nine.



THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

While the agriculturists were thus demanding relief, the corn-laws were not only insisted on as an answer to all complaints by those who maintained a different interest, but were also themselves made the subject of a formal attack. On the 6th of March, Mr. Hume moved, "That this house do resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to consider of the corn-laws, and of substituting, instead of the present graduated scale of duties, a fixed and moderate duty on the import at all times of foreign corn into the United Kingdom, and for granting a fixed and equivalent bounty on the export of corn from the United Kingdom, with the ultimate view of establishing a free trade in corn." Sir James Graham defended the present system as necessary to prevent the destruction of the farmers, and the annihilation of the occupations of an immense body of agricultural labourers. On the other hand, Lord Morpeth, who was himself connected with the landed interest, Lord Howick, and Mr. Clay, member for the Tower Hamlets, supported the motion, contending that it was the corn-laws which kept the agricultural interest in a state of depression while all other interests were prospering. The Irish members who spoke were adverse to the proposition; the very agitation of the question, it was said, would do much mischief in Ireland, unless the house distinctly declared that there should be no change in the existing law. Lord Althorp said that he would meet the motion with a direct negative, although his opinions were favourable to an alteration of the existing system. In opposition, therefore, to his theoretical opinion, he would resist the motion; and he believed that every cabinet minister would vote against it. There were, however, some of the members of government favourable to a repeal of the corn-laws; and Mr. Thompson, vice-president of the board of trade, supported the motion, and delivered a long speech, principally in answer to Sir James Graham's. He contended that so far from the existing system conferring any benefit on the corn-growers, the farmers, who had been deluded by it, had more reason to complain of it than any other class in the country. And what, he asked, were the effects on our manufactures of this system which had ruined the farmers? The motion was rejected by three hundred and twelve against one hundred and fifty-five. The subject was again discussed incidentally, on the occasion of the presentation of a petition from Liverpool in favour of free trade, and especially of a free trade in corn. Sir Robert Peel embraced this opportunity of expressing his opinions on the subject—opinions utterly at variance with the enlightened policy adopted by him at a subsequent date. On the other hand, Sir Henry Parnell said that the pretext of farmers being interested in a continuation of the corn-laws was a gross delusion practised on them by the landlords. It was for their advantage alone that the whole community was taxed.