At this time, also, those concerned in the shipping-interest complained loudly of distress, which they considered to be either caused or aggravated by the admission into our ports of the ships of foreign nations on the same terms on which our vessels were admitted into theirs; an admission which the crown had the power of conceding under the fourth of George IV., c. 77, commonly called "the Reciprocity of Duties Act." Many petitions for the repeal of this act were presented; and on the 5th of June Mr. G. F. Young moved for leave to bring in a bill for that purpose; but the motion was resisted by ministers, and rejected by one hundred and seventeen against fifty-two.



FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ETC.

Notwithstanding the distress of the country, the financial affairs of the present year exhibited an encouraging aspect. The chancellor of the exchequer indeed, after providing for the interest on the L20,000,000 granted to West India proprietors, had a disposable surplus of L1,620,000. From various alterations about to be made in the state of taxation with respect to spirits and beer, the estimated surplus might be taken at L1,815,000. Under these circumstances, the chancellor of the exchequer made the following reductions in taxation: in the house-tax, which was wholly abolished,L1,200,000; customs,L200,000; starch, L75,000; stone bottles and sweets, L6000; almanacks, L25,000; small assessed taxes, L75,000—leaving still a surplus of about L230,000. But this surplus would be further reduced by a change which was proposed in the spirit duties. The duty on spirits distilled in Ireland had for several years been fixed at the same amount as in Scotland. That policy was now to be departed from, and the duty on Irish spirits was to be reduced from 3s. 4d. to 2s. 4d. per gallon. After a few words from Mr. Baring against the views of the chancellor of the exchequer, the resolutions proposed were adopted by the house. Subsequently, an important measure of finance was attempted in a plan for the reduction of the four per cent, annuities created in 1826. All holders of that stock who should not signify their dissent, were to have, for every L100, three and a half per cent, in a new stock to be consolidated with the existing three and a half per cent, annuities, which were not liable to redemption before January, 1840. The dissentients were found to be a greater number than had been anticipated. Before the 9th of June, nine hundred and sixty-nine had expressed their dissent, and they held stock to the amount of L4,600,000. In order to provide funds for paying off these dissentients, a resolution was passed on the 7th of June, authorising the commissioners of the national debt to pay them out of the monies, stocks, or exchequer-bills which they held under "the savings' bank act." The dissented stock was from the tenth of October following to be considered as converted into an equal amount of three and a half per cents., which were to be vested in the commissioners, and placed in the bank-books to the account intituled "funds for the banks of savings."



BILL FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CIVIL DISABILITIES OF THE JEWS, ETC.

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

During this session Mr. Robert Grant again brought in a bill for removing the civil disabilities of the Jews. The second reading was opposed by Mr. C. Bruce. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The amendment, however, was rejected, and the bill carried through committee by large majorities, and it was read a third time and passed on the 11th of June by fifty votes against fourteen. In the lords, on the second reading, the Earl of Malmsbury moved the amendment that the bill should be read that day six months. The Earl of Winchilsea seconded the amendment. On a division the bill was lost by one hundred and thirty-two against thirty-eight.

The distress felt at this time by all classes of the community was dexterously made use of by the opponents of ministers to render their administration unpopular. They became exposed to great inconvenience from a statutory rule of the constitution, which requires that all members of the house of commons who accept certain offices under the crown shall vacate their seats, and take the chance of a re-election. In more instances than one, the candidate thus stamped with the approbation of government had not been re-elected; and even the attorney-general, having, by his promotion, lost his seat for Dudley, was unable to appear in the house of commons. This was the first practical grievance experienced under the reform act, which had swept away all the close boroughs without any exception, and provided no means to compensate the loss. This state of matters induced Sir Robert Heron, on the 1st of May, to move for leave to bring in a bill to obviate the necessity of members vacating their seats on their accepting certain offices under the crown. Mr. E. L. Bulwer was dissatisfied with the proposition, because it failed to remove the worst clanger of the present system. The principle of the constitution, he said, was not that the people should choose ministers, but that they should have an opportunity of deciding whether or not they wished their representatives to become ministers, and this principle the present measure would destroy. Pie moved, as an amendment, "That, for the convenience of the public service, and the promotion of the public interests, it is desirable that one member of each of the principal departments of state should have a seat in that house, but without the privilege of voting, unless returned by the suffrages of a constituency." Dr. Lushington and Mr. Ward opposed both these propositions, as taking from the people one of the most valuable privileges given to them by the constitution, merely for the purpose of consulting the convenience and safety of the party now in power. Lord Althorp assured the house that the subject had been introduced without the sanction of government; but, at the same time, he stated that ministers had been put to great inconvenience. On the whole, however, he thought that the time was not yet come when a measure like that should be pressed on the house. Both the motion and the amendment were withdrawn.

On the 15th of May Mr. Tennyson submitted a motion for leave to introduce a bill to shorten the duration of parliaments. He reserved to himself the right, he said, of suggesting the precise period to which parliaments should extend, when the measure had gone into committee. The motion was seconded by Sir Edward Codrington, who expressed himself in favour of five years as being more likely to reconcile the different parties. Colonel Davies opposed the motion as being premature; and Lord Dalmeny thought the passing of the reform act the strongest possible reason against entertaining the question. In reply, Mr. Tennyson stated that those who supported the bill would bind themselves only to the propriety of shortening the duration of parliaments, without at all pledging themselves to any particular period, which might be reserved for determination in committee; whereas, those who voted against it, would give a conclusive opinion that the present term ought to be continued. Mr. E. J. Stanley moved, byway of amendment, that the bill be one to shorten parliaments to five years, which was negatived without a division: the original motion was lost by a majority of fifty. Subsequently Colonel Evans moved for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the reform act, in so far as it made the payment of rates and taxes an essential qualification for voting at parliamentary elections, which was supported by Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, Attwood, and O'Connell. The motion was opposed by Lords John Russell and Althorp; and it was lost, on a division, by a majority of eighty-seven. Previous to this, Lord John Russell had introduced a bill to prevent bribery at elections, which had passed the commons. The peers had referred this bill to a select committee; and on the 28th of July, the Marquis of Lansdowne, on presenting the report of the committee, stated that there had been no interference with the powers possessed by the election committees of the house of commons. The single object kept in view by the committee was the attainment of the proposed end in the speediest manner possible. Accordingly an amendment on the bill was suggested, by which it was directed that, when a committee of the house of commons had come to the conclusion that gross and extensive bribery had been committed in any place, the result of that inquiry should be laid before their lordships; and then the crown should issue a commission, over which one of the judges should preside, to form a court of inquiry on the whole matter in dispute. He proposed that this court should consist of seven members of the house of commons, five of their lordships, and one judge, who should have the power of calling before them all persons and documents affecting the subject of inquiry; that the witnesses should be exempted from the consequences of*any evidence which they might be called on to give; and that a statement of the result having been drawn up, any legislative enactment with regard to the alleged abuse should be left to the discretion of the two houses of parliament. When these amendments were brought under the consideration of the lower house, Lord John Russell thought them of so extensive a nature as to render the bill almost a new measure; and ultimately he agreed to withdraw it.

On the 15th of April, Mr. Roebuck moved for a select committee to inquire into the political condition of the Canadas. These provinces, he said, in consequence of bad government, were in a state of revolt. By their constitution they had a governor, a legislative council, and a house of assembly. Some years after the constitution had been conferred upon them, the two provinces were permitted to provide for their own expenses, and consequently to have control over the expenditure of the government. It had been proposed to pass the estimates annually; but that plan had been thwarted by the government, which charged the house of assembly with disrespect to his majesty. The representatives of the people next resolved to vote their money by items; but this having excited the jealousy of the officials, put a stop for the time to the business of the state. In consequence of all this the public mind was embittered, and the country was divided into two hostile sections—a small band of official persons on the one hand, and the nation, with their representatives at their head, on the other. Mr. Stanley said, that he was glad of the opportunity of bringing under the notice of the house the present state of the province of Lower Canada, and after entering into the subject at great length, he moved as an amendment for the appointment of a select committee, to inquire and report whether the grievances complained of in 1828 by certain inhabitants of that colony had been redressed; and also, whether the recommendation of a committee of that house, to which the question of those grievances was referred, had been complied with on the part of government: also to inquire into other grievances set forth in the resolutions of the house of assembly in Lower Canada, and report thereupon to the house. Mr. O'Connell said that the object of government was to thwart the Catholic clergymen of Canada, and to throw obstacles in the way of their building chapels. He recommended that the motion should be withdrawn, and the amendment allowed to be carried, so as to throw upon government the responsibility of appointing the committee. Mr. Hume contrasted the tyranny exercised over the colony by the present government, with the leniency of the measures adopted by Lord Goderich; and Lord Howick expressed a hope that the committee about to be appointed would succeed in effecting an amicable adjustment of the differences prevailing in Lower Canada. Finally the motion was withdrawn, and the amendment of Mr. Stanley adopted.



PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by the king in person on the 15th of August. In his speech his majesty lamented the still unsettled state of Holland and Belgium; but expressed satisfaction that civil war had absolutely terminated in Portugal. He rejoiced, he said, that the state of affairs in the Peninsula had induced him to conclude with the King of France, the Queen Regent of Spain, and the Regent of Portugal that quadripartite treaty, which had materially contributed to produce so happy a result. Events, however, had since occurred in Spain, to disappoint for a time those hopes of tranquillity, which the pacification of Portugal had inspired. In his speech his majesty alluded to the numerous and important questions that had engaged, and would still engage the attention of parliament.



DISSOLUTION OF THE CABINET.

Before parliament was prorogued the weakness and vacillation of the ministry had been very apparent. From the moment of Earl Grey's resignation, indeed, the want of intrinsic power had rendered them dependent on O'Connell and his faction. And this very support was vouchsafed to them in such a way as tended to bring their government still more into contempt: while the Irish demagogues supported them, they expressed the utmost contempt for them. Thus, in the month of October, O'Connell wrote a series of letters to Lord Duncannon, in which every species of abuse was heaped upon the ministry and the Whigs.

Another circumstance which contributed to lower the reputation of the ministry was the hostility evinced to them by the public press. There was scarcely a daily newspaper, except the Morning Chronicle, which did not occasionally express contempt for them; and as for the Times, its columns perpetually exposed their feebleness and incapacity to carry on government on any fixed set of principles. The conduct of Lord Brougham also tended to bring his colleagues into contempt. During the autumn he traversed different parts of Scotland, making speeches wherever hearers were to be found, in which at one time he would go the utmost lengths of ultra-radicalism, and at another, would speak in such a way as would have induced the Conservatives to hail him as their own. The dissolution of the ministry, however, was especially aided by the death of Earl Spencer, which took place on the 10th of November. As that event moved Lord Althorp to the house of lords, it was requisite to find a new chancellor of the exchequer, and a new leader of the house of commons.

On the 14th of November Lord Melbourne waited on the king at Brighton, to submit to his majesty the changes in official appointments which the death of Earl Spencer had rendered necessary, Lord John Russell being the individual selected as leader of the house of commons; but the king thought that business could not be carried on by such a ministry as it was proposed to construct, and he expressed his opinion that Lord Brougham could not continue chancellor, as well as his dissatisfaction with the selection of the members of the cabinet who were to frame the Irish church bill. The king, in fact, announced that he should not impose upon Lord Melbourne the task of completing the official arrangements, but would apply to the Duke of Wellington.



SIR ROBERT PEEL APPOINTED PRIME-MINISTER.

Having thus dismissed the cabinet, his majesty sent for the Duke of Wellington, who advised him to entrust the government to Sir Robert Peel. As Sir Robert, however, was in Italy, he offered to carry on the public business till his return. This course was adopted, and as a temporary arrangement, his grace was appointed first lord of the treasury, and sworn in as one of the principal secretaries of state. On the 21st of November, Lord Lyndhurst received the great seal, and took the oaths as lord-chancellor, but he did not resign the office of lord-chief-baron till the settlement of the ministry in December. Sir Robert Peel, who had been sent for by a special messenger, arrived on the 9th of that month, and one of his first steps was to propose to Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham that they should be members of the new administration; but they both declined pledging themselves to the extent to which they might be considered bound by the acceptance of office. The official arrangements, however, were completed by the end of December, and the new cabinet consisted of the following members:—Sir Robert Peel, first lord of the treasury; Lord Lyndhurst, lord-chancellor; the Earl of Rossyln, president of the council; Lord Wharncliffe, lord-privy-seal; the Duke of Wellington, secretary-of-state for foreign affairs; Mr. Goulburn, secretary-of-state for the home department; the Earl of Aberdeen, colonial secretary; Mr. Alexander Baring, president of the board or trade; Sir George Murray, master-general of the ordnance; Sir E. Knatchbull, paymaster of the forces; Earl de Grey, first lord of the admiralty; Lord Ellenborough, president of the board of control; Lord Maryborough, postmaster-general; the Earl of Jersey, lord-chamberlain; the Earl of Roden, lord-steward; Lord Lowther, vice-president of the board of trade, and treasurer of the navy; Mr. C. Wynn, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; Mr. Hemes, secretary-at-war; Mr. F. Pollock, attorney-general for England; and Mr. Follett, solicitor-general. The Earl of Haddington went to Ireland as lord-lieutenant; Sir Edward Sugden was appointed lord-chancellor of Ireland; Sir Henry Hardinge became chief-secretary to the lord-lieutenant; and Sir James Scarlett succeeded Lord Lyndhurst as lord-chief-baron of the exchequer, with the title of Lord Abinger.



DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

Every man of penetration saw that the new ministry had too much of the old leaven to stand long as the present parliament was constituted. Sir Robert Peel, however, did not despair. Though there was a reformed parliament, he fully anticipated carrying on the government with advantage to the country. In the month of November he expounded the principles on which he designed to conduct government, in a long address to his constituents at Tamworth, observing, that he would not accept power on the condition of declaring himself an apostate from the principles on which he had hitherto acted, and declaring that he had not been a defender of abuses, or an enemy to judicious reforms, either before or after the reform bill had passed. It was evident, however, to Sir Robert Peel and his colleagues that government could not be carried on with the present parliament; and therefore, on the 30th of December, a proclamation was issued, dissolving it, and convoking a new one to meet on the 5th of February, 1835.



THE ACT ABOLISHING SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES CARRIED INTO EFFECT.

On the 1st of August in the present year, the act for the emancipation of the negroes came into operation. In some islands symptoms of insubordination were exhibited, and the planters were obliged to have recourse to punishment and force, in order to overcome the reluctance of the black population to regular labour; yet this great change took place without any serious disturbances. In Barbadoes, indeed, there was perfect tranquillity and order; and in Jamaica the transition was accompanied with very little alarm or commotion. The slave felt grateful that he was permitted to take his proper station among the great family of mankind.



STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

At the close of the last year, the government of the Queen of Portugal was in possession of the capital, as well as of Oporto. Having an efficient army, as the authority of Don Miguel was obeyed over a large extent of country, the government resolved to pursue its military operations with vigour. The plan adopted was to crush the smaller bodies of men in arms for the pretender in various parts of the kingdom, till there should be no Miguelites but those who were around himself at Santarem. In pursuance of this plan, the Duke of Terceira joined the queen's army in January, in order that Saldanha might undertake other operations. Saldanha made himself master of Leyria, between Lisbon and Coimbra, and Torres Novas, in which a system of massacre was adopted disgraceful to himself and his officers. His army now separated Miguel from the north, while the army of the Duke of Terceira pressed upon him from Lisbon. Saldanha took up his position at Almoster, where, in February, he was attacked by the Miguelites; but he repulsed them with great slaughter. Events equally favourable to the queen took place in the north, where considerable numbers of Miguelites were still in arms. The provinces north of the Duero were, indeed, cleared of the enemy by the Duke of Terceira; and he then retraced his steps to expel the partisans of Miguel from the positions which they still held between the Duero and the Tagus, particularly Coimbra, on the Mondego, and Figueiras, at the mouth of that river. Figueiras was reduced by a naval expedition, under Admiral Napier, and Coimbra opened its gates to the duke himself. The queen's forces now pressed upon Don Miguel; and on the 18th of May he abandoned his lines at Santarem, and retreated towards Guadiana, in the direction of Evora. He was followed by Count Saldanha and the Duke of Terceira, who were at the head of 20,000 men; and seeing no hopes of success or escape, he sought a suspension of arms for the purpose of negociating. The government refused to enter into any negociation, or to listen to any terms different from those which had been already tendered; namely, that Don Miguel should leave Portugal within fifteen days, and engage never to return to any part of the Spanish provinces or the Portuguese dominions, nor in any way concur in disturbing the tranquillity of these kingdoms; that he would be allowed to embark in a ship of war belonging to any of the four allied powers; and that he should receive a pension of sixty centos of reis, about L15,000, and be permitted to dispose of his personal property, on restoring the jewels and other articles belonging to the crown and to private individuals. The troops of Don Miguel were to lay down their arms, and return peaceably to their homes under the protection of the amnesty; and he was to issue orders to commanders of fortresses, or of troops, who still recognised his authority, immediately to submit, under the same protection, to the government of the queen. To these terms Don Miguel now consented; and having signed the convention, he went on board a British vessel of war, which carried him to Genoa. The civil war was thus brought to an end in Portugal; and it was this happy event which led his majesty to conclude a treaty with that government, as alluded to in his speech. One act of ingratitude which the Portuguese government committed, however, must not be forgotten. It was chiefly by the valour of the British volunteer auxiliaries that the cause of the queen was triumphant; and these volunteers had been induced to enter into the service by promises of pay equal to that of England, exclusive of allowances for compensation and other advantages. The Cortes, however resolved, in January, 1834, that they should only receive Portuguese pay; and when the war came to an end, the British troops remained unpaid. The men, in fact, on whose bravery the sole dependence was placed when danger was threatened, were left to wander through the streets of Lisbon in rags and poverty, and compelled to prolong a miserable existence on scanty rations of beans and bread, with the occasional addition of a morsel of salt fish. Such is the usual reward of mercenaries who hire themselves out as the supporters of foreign revolutionary governments.

During this year the political relations between Holland and Belgium continued in the same state of uncertainty in which they had been left at the close of the former year. In Spain, also, the history of the present year opens with a continuance of the same contests for the succession to the crown which had marked the close of the preceding. Throughout the whole year, indeed, there was war between the queen-regent and Don Carlos; and the year closed while yet they were in arms. In Switzerland some agitation was occasioned by an attempt of the Poles in that country, in concert with Italian fugitives in the French departments of the Rhone and Isere, to overthrow the Sardinian throne in Turin, by a sudden attack upon Savoy. Greece, during the present year, suffered both the evils of civil war and of political intrigue. In Turkey, the ascendancy of Russia was increased by an alliance, offensive and defensive, which was concluded between those two powers. The emperor gave up two-thirds of what remained to be paid in respect of the indemnities stipulated for by the treaty of Adrianople; and, on the other hand, to surround his Asiatic frontier, the Porte ceded to him an extensive tract of country in the pachalic of Athattsick. Turkey was to pay that portion of the indemnity which was not relinquished when it might suit her finances; and, in the meantime, Silistria was to remain as a pledge in the hands of the Russians, an arrangement which gave them the effective command of Moldavia and Wallachia, and left the frontier of Turkey defenceless against invasion. Russia also was to have the free passage of the Dardanelles.



CHAPTER XLV.

{WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836}

State of Parties..... General Election..... Ecclesiastical Commission..... Meeting of Parliament; Contest for the Office of Speaker..... Opening of the Session..... Discussion in the Lords regarding the Slavery Abolition Act..... Motion of the Marquis of Chandos to repeal the Malt-tax..... The Dissenters' Marriage Act..... Ministerial Plan for the Commutation of Tithes in England..... Report of Commission regarding the Church of England, &c...... The Question of the Appropriation of the Surplus Revenues of the Irish Church..... Resignation of Ministers and the Restoration of Lord Melbourne's Cabinet..... Municipal Reform and the Irish Church..... Agricultural Distress..... Municipal Corporations..... Bill for regulating the Irish Church..... Discussion regarding Orange Societies in Ireland..... The Vote by Ballot, &c...... Motion for the Repeal of the Window-tax, &c...... The Budget..... Discussions regarding Canada..... Prorogation of Parliament..... State of the Continent



STATE OF PARTIES.

{A.D. 1835}

The state of the political world in this country was, at the opening of the present year, one of great interest and excitement. The dismissal of the Melbourne ministry was received by the country with undisturbed composure and perfect good-humour; but this was viewed by its members and partisans with alarm and humiliation; and, conceiving that it betokened a relaxation of power in the springs to whose action they trusted for their speedy return to office, they resolved to leave no means untried to agitate the country from one end to the other, in order to recover their waning influence. To this end the dismissal of the ministry was announced as exclusively the work of the queen, and as the result of a deep tory plot, and complicated tory intrigues. These tales, however, failed in creating the universal dismay so much desired; and then the organs of the party in opposition constantly insisted on the dreadful fate which awaited the country from the removal of the only men who had either head to conceive or courage to undertake the task of saving the public weal, and putting in their place politicians who would repeal the reform act, impose new taxes, restore and multiply pensions, establish military law, and finally produce civil war. Still the country remained quiescent: it was known that the picture was fictitious, and men refused to be dismayed. One thing, however, was effected: although the Radicals did not raise any clamorous outcries at the downfall of their former associates, they struck a bargain with the Whigs, and came to terms for the purpose of putting down a common enemy.



GENERAL ELECTION.

The result of the elections crushed the present hopes of the Whigs. Instead of increasing either their numbers or their radical accomplices, it brought an addition of more than one hundred members to the Conservatives, exclusive of those whig reformers, such as Lord Stanley, who refused to identify themselves with the whig opposition in its present character and conduct, and of those among the Radicals, as Mr. Cobbett, who would not consent to be used merely as instruments for lifting men into power who would not manfully adopt any one of their opinions, and yet boasted their alliance as being engaged in a common cause. It must be confessed, however, that the Conservatives placed their all on this cast of the die. The Carlton Club dispersed its agents far and wide throughout the country, and every engine which aristocratic wealth and ecclesiastical influence could put in motion was employed in their cause. In the counties, the fifty-pound clause operated greatly to their advantage, and success generally attended their efforts; but in towns the opposite party were more successful. In Scotland there were some changes, but the comparative strength of parties remained there nearly the same as before; but in Ireland the retinue of the popish agitator was somewhat diminished, although the popish priests exerted themselves to the utmost in his favour. As for O'Connell himself, together with his coadjutors, he practised every form of violence and intimidation against every candidate who would not join in his cry for repeal, vote by ballot, short parliaments, and extension of the suffrage. Thus the Knight of Kerry, who started as a candidate for his native county, and who had spent his whole life in resisting Orangemen, because he refused to become an instrument in the hands of the popish priesthood and their agitator, was denounced as unworthy of being elected; every man who dared to vote for him was to have a death's-head and cross-bones painted on his door: and the consequence was that he was rejected. Of a candidate for New Ross, who refused to enlist under his banner, O'Connell said, "Whoever shall support him, his shop shall be deserted; no man shall pass his threshold. Put up his name as a traitor to Ireland; let no man deal with him; let no woman speak to him; let the children laugh him to scorn." Mr. Shiel likewise opposed a candidate for the county of Clonmel in the following words: "If any Catholic should vote for him, I will supplicate the throne of the Almighty that he may be shown mercy in the next world; but I ask no mercy for him in this." Yet this unconstitutional line of conduct was not always successful, and even O'Connell himself, with Mr. Ruthven his colleague, found it difficult to obtain their return for the city of Dublin. The final result of the elections secured to the ministry a decided majority, in so far as England was concerned.



MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.—CONTEST FOR THE ELECTION OF SPEAKER.

Parliament met on the 19th of February. The attendance in the house of commons on the first day was more numerous than had ever been witnessed, even on the discussion of any great political or party question, it being determined by both parties to contest the election of speaker. Lord Francis Egerton moved that Sir Charles Manners Sutton should be called to the chair. The motion was seconded by Sir C. Burrell, who said that though he had supported Mr. Wynn as a candidate for the chair in 1817, in opposition to the late speaker, he had never found reason to regret his want of success on that occasion. On the other hand, Mr. Denison proposed that Mr. Abercromby should take the chair, which motion was seconded by Mr. Orde. Both these gentlemen expressed the pain which they felt at being compelled by an imperative sense of public duty to oppose the re-election of the late speaker, and declared their hearty concurrence in all that had been said regarding his excellent qualifications; but they maintained that a great public principle rendered it necessary that those qualifications should not be taken into consideration. A debate of considerable length ensued, in which the two candidates themselves took part. On a division Mr. Abercromby was elected, three hundred and sixteen voting for him, and three hundred and six for Sir Charles Sutton. The honourable gentleman was then conducted to the chair, and next day, appearing at the bar of the house of lords, he received from the lord-chancellor an assurance of his majesty's approval of his election. His election was the first fruits of the treaty of alliance between the opposition and O'Connell; but the smallness of the majority by which it was obtained demonstrated to the opposition that, without his aid, they could never hope to triumph over the present ministry.



OPENING OF THE SESSION.

His majesty opened the session in person on the 24th of February; the intervening days from the election of speaker having been employed in swearing in members of the house of commons. Recently the two houses of parliament had been destroyed by fire, and temporary rooms had been fitted up for the accommodation of the British senate. In the lords the address was moved by the Earl of Hardwicke, and seconded by Lord Gage. An amendment was moved by Lord Melbourne, which was apparently framed for the purpose of catching stray votes, by being so constructed that even its success could not lead to the resignation of the ministry. The Earl of Ripon and the Duke of Richmond, who had both been connected with the late government, expressed their intention of supporting ministers, so far as they could applaud their measures, though they were unable to promise them full confidence. Finally, the amendment was negatived without a division.

In the commons, the address was moved by Lord Sandon, and seconded by Mr. Branston. Lord Morpeth moved an amendment to this effect:—"That in place of the concluding paragraphs should be substituted words expressing a trust that his majesty's councils would be directed in a spirit of well-considered and effective reform; that, in the same liberal and comprehensive policy which had dictated the reform of our representation and tire abolition of negro slavery, the municipal corporations would be placed under vigilant popular control; that all the well-founded grievances of the Protestant dissenters would be removed; that all the abuses in the church which impair its efficiency in England, and disturb the peace of society in Ireland, would be corrected; and that the commons beg submissively to add, that they could not but lament that the progress of these and other reforms should have been unnecessarily interrupted and endangered by the dissolution of the late parliament." The amendment was seconded by Mr. Bannerman, and the debate was continued by adjournment on the 25th and 26th of February. The members who took part in it were, for the original address, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, Messrs. Pemberton, Richards, Robinson, Goulburn, and Praed, and Sir James Graham; for the amendment, Lords John Russell and Howick, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Grote, Poulton, Ward, Ewart, Harvey, Fox Maule, Gisborne, Duncombe, O'Connell, and Sir Samuel Whalley. On a division, the amendment was carried by a majority of three hundred and nine against three hundred and two. The majority being so small, Sir Robert Peel intimated that it was possible he might take the sense of the house again on the question of bringing up the report; but next evening he stated that it was not now his intention to do this. The address, therefore, as amended, was presented to the king, who made the following reply:—"I thank you sincerely for the assurances which you have given me, in this loyal and dutiful address, of your disposition to co-operate with me in the improvement, with a view to the maintenance, of our institutions in church and state. I learn with regret that you do not concur with me as to the policy of the appeal which I have earnestly made to the sense of my people. I never have exercised, and I will never exercise any of the prerogatives which I hold, excepting for the single purpose of promoting the great end for which they are entrusted to me—the public good; and I confidently trust that no measure conducive to the general interest will be endangered or interrupted in its progress by the opportunity which I have afforded to my faithful and loyal subjects of expressing their opinions through the choice of their representatives in parliament." On a subsequent day, in answer to some questions put by Lord John Russell, the premier stated that he had not felt it his duty, in consequence of the vote on the address, to tender his resignation; that with respect to the Irish church, he retained his opinion that ecclesiastical property ought not to be diverted from ecclesiastical purposes, although any measures not inconsistent with this principle should have his best consideration; that he had no motive or intention to obstruct corporation reform; and that, in regard to a rumour which had been promulgated about another dissolution, and an alleged intention of government, in case the mutiny bill should not pass, to keep up a standing army in defiance of parliament, he had never sanctioned the first either directly or indirectly, and he had never heard a whisper about the second until it fell from Lord John Russell's own lips. These assurances, however, were not sufficient to satisfy the objections of his political opponents.

The conduct of Sir Robert Peel, in retaining office after an adverse vote upon the address, became the subject of indignant declamation throughout the country, and strengthened the general impression that ministers intended, if possible, to destroy the measures enacted by the reform bill, and to obstruct all further melioration of the law. It was true, as the partisans of the government urged, that there were precedents for the retention of office in the face of adverse votes; but this was a vote upon the general policy of the government, not upon its policy in some non-essential particular, and constitutionally decided that the ministry did not possess the confidence of the commons house of parliament. According to all rule and precedent, Sir Robert ought to have resigned. The Duke of Sussex, Lord Holland, the great Fox, and other statesmen of acknowledged constitutional principles and respect for public rights, had always maintained these views. The conduct of Sir Robert and his cabinet was, therefore, justly held to be opposed to the practice of parliament and the doctrines of the constitution. Much of the odium of this procedure fell upon the Duke of Wellington, who was supposed to be the potential adviser of Sir Robert in this matter, and whose despotic sympathies, betrayed in many ways, gave great offence to the people. Had not the previous ministers, by their inconsistency, incompetency, and truckling to O'Connell and the Irish priest party, forfeited the confidence of a large portion of their British supporters, the efforts of Sir Robert Peel to retain office in opposition to a majority of parliament, would have created such a storm of hostility to him throughout Great Britain, as would have made it difficult for him to hold any office for many a year.



DISCUSSION IN THE LORDS RESPECTING THE SLAVERY ABOLITION ACT.

On the 27th of February the Earl of Mulgrave, whose efficient administration of the government of Jamaica had made him an authority on the West India slavery question, inquired of the secretary for the colonies, whether it was the intention of the present government to carry out the measure of emancipation recently passed through parliament. Lord Mulgrave strongly represented to the house the apprehensions entertained by the public that, in two respects, the government would differ from its predecessor:—the appointment of impartial magistrates—men not holders of slave property; and the protection of the missionaries, to whom the planters entertained an unjust prejudice, but who, in the experience of Lord Mulgrave in Jamaica, were a most useful body of men, who had in no way transgressed the bounds of their sacred calling in their conduct to slave or master. To these inquiries and remarks the Earl of Aberdeen replied very much in the tone and spirit in which he was accustomed to answer questions when, many years later, during the Russian war, he was prime-minister. He affected surprise that any one should suppose him an opponent to freedom; promised everything that popular opinion demanded; but betrayed, nevertheless, by his sneers and misrepresentations where the missionaries were concerned, and his deep sympathy with the planters, that his heart was set against justice and liberty to the poor apprentices. The Duke of Wellington brusquely said, that he had been opposed to the philanthropic view of the negro question altogether, but the bill passed by parliament he would not consent to see made a dead letter. The duke evidently said what he meant. The well-known honesty of his character assured the Earl of Mulgrave who accepted the reply. It was a good sign as to the policy which the cabinet intended to pursue on this question, that the Marquis of Sligo was requested to retain his office as Governor of Jamaica. The noble marquis was not an experienced politician or administrator; but in his management of the difficult and complicated concerns of Jamaica at that time, he proved himself to be a man of ability and honour.



MOTION OF THE MARQUIS OF CHANDOS TO REPEAL THE MALT-TAX.

The first proposal which ministers found themselves compelled to resist proceeded from one of their own supporters, and it was also one in which their opponents were compelled to join them in resisting. On the 10th of March, the Marquis of Chandos moved a resolution for the repeal of the malt-tax, as a source of relief to the agricultural interest. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hand-ley. Sir Robert Peel, in reply, contended that the motion, if it was to be made at all, ought not to have been brought forward till after an authentic declaration of the national means had been laid before the house. In the course of his speech, Sir Robert Peel said that if the malt-duty were repealed, there was no alternative but to have a property-tax to make up the deficiency. Messrs. Cobbett and Bennett, who supported the motion, saw no objection to such a tax; and the latter gentleman said that the English landowners were too depressed in their circumstances to fear anything from the change, as the property was in the hands of the mortgagees and money-jobbers. The Earl of Darlington was bound, he said, to vote in favour of the resolution, however great his reluctance to do anything that might embarrass a government to which he was friendly, and a minister who, he believed, would endeavour to effect what he considered best calculated for the interest of the country. Messrs. C. Wood, Rice, and Poulett Thompson, all of whom had been connected with the late government, spoke against the motion; as did also Sir Edward Knatchbull, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Baring, Sir R. Gresely, and Mr. Grote. The debate was closed by Mr. Hume, who supported the motion. On a division, however, the motion was negatived by three hundred and fifty votes against one hundred and ninety-two. So convincing were Sir Robert Peel's arguments, that several members voted with him who had either pledged themselves at their election to take a different side, or had, at least, induced their constituents to believe they would.



THE DISSENTERS' MARRIAGE ACT.

Sir Robert Peel introduced the first important measure of government on the 17th of March, being a bill to provide relief for those dissenters who objected to have their marriage rites performed according to the ritual of the English church. The measure provided that a civil marriage should take place before a magistrate, who should refer the certificate to the parish clergyman, by whom it was to be inserted in the parochial registry. The various bodies of dissenters might, by arrangements of their own, provide a religious form as a sort of addendum to the civil ceremony. This brief affair was stated by Sir Robert in a very verbose speech, in which he showed a desire to conciliate all parties, and an apprehension that he would fail to conciliate any. Leave was given to bring in a bill.



REPORT OF COMMISSION REGARDING THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, ETC.

One of the first acts of the new ministry had been the appointment of a commission, consisting principally of the heads of the church, to inquire into and report upon the changes which might be effected in regard to ecclesiastical territory, income, and patronage, so as to render remuneration and labour more commensurate with each other; to enforce residence; and to destroy the necessity of pluralities, by providing for all a sufficient maintenance. The first report of this commission was presented to the house of commons on the 19th of March, which proposed a new arrangement of diocesses. As regards emolument, the principle adopted was to proportion, as far as might be, the revenues of the bishops to their several stations and duties; not making any reduction where the income did not exceed L5500, and making an addition where it amounted to L4500. The division of large parishes was further recommended; the revenues of new incumbents being supplied from prebends and other preferments which might fall.

On the 12th of March the attorney-general obtained leave to bring in a bill for improving, the administration of justice in ecclesiastical causes, which was one of the measures alluded to in the speech from the throne. On the same day also he obtained leave to bring in another bill, having for its object the better maintenance of the discipline of the church of England. On the 24th of March, Sir Robert Peel brought the subject of the commutation of tithes in England before the house of commons. After a long statement explanatory of his views, he concluded by moving the following resolution:—"That it is expedient to give facilities for the commutation of tithe in the several parishes of England and Wales, and for a payment in moneys, in substitution thereof to be allotted on the tithable lands in each parish; such payment to be subject to variation at stated periods, according to the prices of corn, or for the allotment of land in lieu of tithe in parishes wherein the parties concerned may consent to such allotment." This resolution was agreed to, and a bill founded on it was ordered to be brought in.



REPEATED DEFEATS OF THE MINISTRY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

While the ministry, by the introduction of these important measures, were vindicating their claim to the character of men who in their policy regarded the prosperity of the country, and were not wedded to anything which might interfere with its welfare, their conduct in other matters furnished manifold indications of the same spirit, and hence disappointed the opposition, which had predicted the continuance and the restoration of every species of abuse. Several committees which had been appointed by the late government were re-appointed; and they professed themselves willing to carry out their well-founded measures. But, notwithstanding all this, their rule was brief; they were unable to disarm the spirit of hostility. During the period in which ministers were proposing their important measures, some minor topics were introduced, in which they found themselves unable to resist the numerical force of their opponents. Thus they were left in a minority on the subject of a petition presented, complaining of Colonel Tremenhere, an officer in the public service at Chatham, as having interfered unconstitutionally in the election for that borough, in which election the government candidate had been returned. Ministers were also left in a minority, when Mr. Tooke moved an "address to his majesty, beseeching him to grant his royal charter of incorporation to the London University, as approved in the year 1831, by the then law-officers of the crown, and containing no other restriction than against conferring degrees in divinity and medicine." Mr. Goulburn moved, as an amendment, that the address should be for copies of the memorials which had been presented against granting the charter, together with an account of the proceedings before the privy-council; but, on a division, the motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and forty-six against one-hundred and thirty-six. On the 1st of April the king returned this answer to the address:—"That his majesty, desirous that such a subject should receive the fullest consideration, had referred it to his privy-council; that the reply of his privy-council had not as yet been communicated to him; but that his majesty begged to assure his most faithful commons that he should call upon his privy-council without delay, for a report of the proceedings they had adopted on the subject, in order to enable his majesty to judge what would be the best mode of carrying into effect the wishes of his faithful commons respecting a charter to the London University, and what might be the conditions on which it should be granted." These questions, however, did not distinctly affect the government. Frequent hints, indeed, were given to Sir Robert Peel that he ought to retire; but as yet no motion was ventured which, if carried, must necessarily have led to that result. On one occasion, Lord John Russell having remarked that all the prerogatives of the crown seemed in a fair way of being successively compromised, in the course of what he called an attempt on the part of the administration to govern with a majority of tire house of commons against them, Sir Robert-Peel complained that the opposition did not bring the question of the retirement of the ministry to a fair issue. No one was more anxious for this, he said, than he himself was; and if the opposition could not find a day for the purpose, he would facilitate their views. He asked Lord John Russell whether, if ministers had thrown up the government, he would not have turned round on them and said, "You are guilty of a cowardly abandonment of office; you never meant to remove grievances; we never brought forward a direct vote of censure; we were prepared to hear your propositions; but you yourself have shrunk from the trial." Mr. Hume admitted that ministers had reason to complain that the question had not yet been brought to an issue; but he hinted at the same time the opposition would take their own time and day for the attack. Lord John Russell said, that if a direct vote of want of confidence had been brought forward, ministers might have gained a number of votes on the plea of being unfairly treated. They might have said to the opposition, "You now preclude us from being heard; you want to condemn us without trial; and to reject our reforms before you are able to judge of them." He would not expose himself to the chance of receiving such an answer; he would wait for the promised measures of reform. The reply sent by the king to the house of commons on the 1st of April created great dissatisfaction in the minds of the liberal members, and among their supporters in the country. It was denounced as another instance of "back-stairs government" by many; this phrase was intended to describe the influence of the queen, and certain ladies of her suite, in political matters. Many of the people, however, absolved the court from all blame, and attributed what so much offended them to the despotic opinions and dispositions of the cabinet, especially "the duke" and Sir Robert Peel. This feeling was chiefly directed against his grace.



THE QUESTION OF THE APPROPRIATION OF THE SURPLUS OF THE REVENUES OF THE IRISH CHURCH.

On the 20th of March Sir Henry Hardinge, the secretary for Ireland, brought forward, in a committee of the whole house, the ministerial plan for settling the Irish tithe question, and moved a resolution to this effect:—"That it is expedient to abolish tithes in Ireland, and to authorise a composition in lieu of it, charged upon the land, and payment to the tithe-owner; that such rent-charge might be redeemed, and the redemption money invested in land or otherwise, for the benefit of the persons entitled to such composition; and that the arrears of tithe due in the year 1834 should be made up from what remained of the L1.000,000 advanced by parliament to the clergy of Ireland in 1833." After a determined resistance from a large portion of the radical members, the motion was carried by a majority of fifteen. This would probably not have been the case, had not Lord John Russell given Sir Robert Peel a qualified support.

Ministers had brought forward everything that could be done practically to remove the evils attending the collection of tithes in Ireland; and the opposition propounded no measure which would go further in the way of securing or arranging the payment of tithe to the Protestant church; they even complained that the new government was merely imitating the conduct of its predecessors. Their only position now was to maintain that it was not enough merely to place on a better and surer foundation the collection of tithe for the Protestant church, but that, to some extent at least, though to what extent nobody attempted to define, it must cease to exist as tithe payable to the Protestant church, and be applied to purposes in which Catholics might have an equal interest. This ground was now taken by the opposition. On the 30th of March Lord John Russell moved the following resolution:—"That this house resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, in order to consider the present state of the church establishment in Ireland, with the view of applying any surplus of the revenues not required for the spiritual care of its members to the general education of all classes of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion." Lord John Russell said, that if the house should resolve itself into a committee on the motion, and should the resolution be carried in a committee of the whole house, he would move an address to the crown, embodying that resolution with an humble entreaty to his majesty, that he would be pleased to enable the house to carry it into effect—for a measure of this kind should be introduced by a message from the crown. The debate which followed was continued by adjournment up to the 2nd of April. Sir Edward Knatchbull, who followed Lord John Russell, objected to the proposition itself, he said, on the distinct ground that he was not prepared to apply church property to other than Protestant church purposes. Mr. Ward, whose motion of a similar character had been set aside by the appointment of the commission, entered at great length into the general question of the right of the state to appropriate church property to whatever purposes it thought proper; contending that no member should give his vote without remembering the undoubted right which parliament possessed of dealing with all corporate property as the welfare of the community might require, and of so disposing of it as to accommodate its distribution to that state of things which the alterations of time might unfold, or the progress of society occasion. Sir James Graham, in opposing the motion, showed that the income of the Irish church did not amount to so large a sum as represented by opposition; and contended that the evils of the proposed appropriation would not be limited to Ireland, but would extend to England: the church of England would not only be endangered by it, but ultimately destroyed. Lord Howick spoke in favour of the resolution, but at the same time disclaimed all participation in any wish that it should be the means of turning out the ministry. Messrs Shiei, Poulter, and Wood also supported the resolution; and Messrs. Lefroy and Gladstone, and Sir R. Inglis spoke against it. Sir William Follett, the solicitor-general, followed on the same side as the latter. Mr. O'Connell, after reiterating his charge of misrule, said that he would avoid any discussion upon tithes, and content himself with laying down the broad principle that the emoluments of a church ought not to be raised from a people who did not belong to it. Ireland did not ask a Catholic establishment; the Irish desired political equality alone; they would not accept a shilling for their church. Their church was unpolluted by the mammon of unrighteousness; the voluntary principle had answered every purpose of the Catholics, and they desired no connexion with the state in matters of religion. It was said, he continued, that the number of Protestants was on the increase in Ireland; he contended that the reverse was the case. It was said, also, that there was danger in giving the Catholics ascendancy; they had been in power three times since the Reformation, and they had not persecuted the Protestants. The address of Mr. O'Connell aided very much in deciding the question against the government. His protestations of moderation as to the desires of enlightened Roman Catholics, and his disclaimers of any wish for the ascendancy of his church, produced an effect favourable to Lord John's motion among such liberal members of the house as possessed little knowledge of ecclesiastical history. The protestations of Mr. O'Connell were as insincere as his statements were historically untrue. His church had never been in power without efforts to persecute; and while he made the voluntary principle his confession of faith, it was notorious to the leading Whigs that his pet measure was the purchase of glebes for the Irish priesthood by the funds of the state, and the further endowment of Maynooth College on an enlarged scale. After various addresses, especially one in a very defiant strain by Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell briefly replied, and the motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two hundred and eighty-nine.

The next step was to consider the resolution in committee; and Sir Robert Peel proposed that the committee should not be taken till the following Monday; but the opposition, flushed with victory, would not consent to a single day's intermission. They insisted that the committee should be taken that very day, which was done; and the debate continued by adjournment on the 5th. In the committee, Lord John Russell substituted "moral and religious instruction" for "general education." On a division in the committee, two hundred and sixty-two voted in favour of the resolution, and two hundred and thirty-seven against it. In the meantime the opposition had partly changed their intended plan of operation. It had been announced by them that the carrying of the resolution would be followed up by an address to the crown; but Lord John Russell now gave notice that he would interpose another step between the house and the throne, by asking the former to pledge itself to this further resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this house that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment, which does not embody the principle contained in the foregoing resolution." Sir Robert Peel allowed the report to be brought up without a division, but he said that he would certainly divide the house on the new resolution. In support of it, Lord John Russell treated it as a necessary corollary of what the house had already voted; it behoved the house, he said, to continue the work which they had begun, and to say that the principle which they had declared to be essential to the maintenance of peace and the due administration of justice in Ireland, should be carried into effect by some legislative measure. The resolution was opposed by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. George Sinclair; while Messrs. Spring Rice, Perrin, and Gisborne supported it. On a division, the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty-five against two hundred and fifty-eight.



RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS, AND RESTORATION OF LORD MELBOURNE'S CABINET.

{WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836}

The majorities of the opposition caused the resignation of ministers. On the meeting of the house, April 8th, Sir Robert Peel stated that he and his colleagues had placed their offices at the disposal of the king. On the same evening a similar announcement was made in the lords by the Duke of Wellington. After Sir Robert Peel's announcement of his resignation, the house of commons met on the 9th for an election ballot, and then adjourned till the 13th. On that day the house was informed by Sir Robert Peel that he had received an intimation from his majesty that the new arrangements were in progress, but were not completed, and the house again adjourned till the 16th. On the 16th Sir Robert was under the necessity of making a similar communication, and the house adjourned to the 18th, on which day the new administration was announced in both houses of parliament. The new cabinet was formed as follows:—Viscount Melbourne resumed his place as first lord of the treasury; Mr. Spring-Rice became chancellor of the exchequer; Lord Auckland was the first lord of the admiralty; Sir John Cam Hob-house, president of the board of control; Mr. Poulett Thompson, president of the board of trade; Lord Dun-cannon was placed at the head of the woods and forests; Lord John Russell took his place in the home department; the colonial office was given to Mr. Charles Grant; the seals of the foreign office were again entrusted to Lord Palmerston; Viscount Howick was secretary-at-war; Sir Henry Parnell was paymaster-general; Mr. Cutlar Ferguson, judge-advocate-general; and Sir John Campbell and Mr. Rolfe again became attorney and solicitor-general. There was no lord-chancellor appointed; the great seal was put in commission, the commissioners being the master of the rolls, the vice-chancellor, and Mr. Justice Bosanquet; Lord Mulgrave was made lord-lieutenant of Ireland, with Lord Plunkett once more as chancellor, and Lord Morpeth as Irish secretary. Mr. Perrin was named attorney-general, and Mr. O'Loghlin, solicitor-general. The lord-advocate of Scotland was Mr. J. A. Murray; the Marquis of Conyngham was postmaster-general; and the Marquis of Welles-ley, lord-chamberlain. After the announcement had been made, the house adjourned to the 30th of April, but with an understanding that no public business should be undertaken till the 12th of May. In the upper house Lord Alvanley asked Lord Melbourne how the ministry stood in regard to Mr. O'Connell and his followers. He wished to know whether government had or had not secured their aid; and if they had, the terms on which that support had been obtained. Lord Brougham said that these questions were improper, and advised Lord Melbourne not to answer them. Lord Melbourne, however, was more courteous. The noble lord had asked him, he said, how far he coincided in opinion with Mr. O'Connell? His answer was, "Not at all. As for the question as to 'whether I have taken any means to secure the assistance of Mr. O'Connell, and if so, on what terms?' I answer that I do not know whether I shall have his assistance or not. I have taken no means to secure it, nor have I said anything from which any inference could be drawn in order to secure that individual's support." As to tithes, Lord Melbourne said, that he did not hesitate to say that he considered himself pledged to act on the resolution of the other house. After the houses had adjourned, the new ministers who belonged to the commons sought to be re-elected; but although they were in general successful, they encountered some failures. The severest stroke of all occurred in the case of Lord John Russell himself: he again presented himself to the electors of the southern division of Devonshire; but he was defeated by Mr. Parker, and he did not procure a seat till after parliament had reassembled. Colonel Fox, member for Stroud, accepted the Chiltern hundreds in his favour, and became secretary to the ordnance. By a similar negotiation, Mr. Kennedy, member for Tiverton, made room for Lord Palmerston. These failures were very discouraging, and gave symptoms of the alarm which had been created in the public mind.



MUNICIPAL REFORM AND THE IRISH CHURCH.

When the new ministers explained what they intended to do this session, it was found that the only measures which they meant to bring forward were a bill for the reform of municipal corporations, and a bill founded on the late resolutions of the commons regarding tithes. Changes in the mode of electing municipal authorities and in the general government of boroughs had become inevitable from, and after the passing of the reform bill. A commission had been appointed, in 1833, to inquire into the state of corporations in England and Wales; and on more than one occasion his majesty had alluded, in his royal speeches, to the objects of the commission. The report of the commissioners had not been made when Sir Robert Peel went out of office, but soon after they framed a general report, besides separate reports on individual corporations. The former, and several of the latter, were presented in May, and the general report thus concluded:—"In conclusion, we report to your majesty, that there prevails amongst the inhabitants of a great majority of the incorporated towns a general, and in our opinion a just, dissatisfaction with their municipal institutions; a distrust of the self-elected municipal councils, whose powers are subject to no popular control, and whose acts and proceedings, being secret, are unchecked by the influence of public opinion; a distrust of the municipal magistracy, tainting with suspicion the local administration of justice, and often accompanied with contempt of the persons by whom the law is administered; a discontent under the burdens of local taxation, while revenues that ought to be applied for the public advantage are diverted from their legitimate use, and are sometimes wastefully bestowed for the benefit of individuals—sometimes squandered for purposes injurious to the character and morals of the people. We therefore feel it to be our duty to represent to your majesty that the existing municipal corporations of England and Wales neither possess nor deserve the confidence or respect of your majesty's subjects, and that a thorough reform must be effected before they can become what we humbly submit to your majesty they ought to be—useful and efficient instruments of local government." Lord John Russell, proceeding on this recommendation, on the 5th of June detailed the plan of municipal government which ministers intended to provide for one hundred and eighty-three corporations. After detailing the many abuses which existed, he said that, instead of the present irregular government of corporations, it was proposed that there should be one uniform system of government—one uniform franchise for the purpose of election: and the like description of officers, with the exception of some of the larger places, in which it might be desirable to have a recorder, or some other magistrates different from the other smaller boroughs. In regard to the qualification of electors, he said it had been determined not to adhere to the parliamentary franchise. By the proposed bill they would be obliged to pay the borough rates, and accord to the established practice of the English government, and the acknowledged and recognised principles of the British constitution. He thought it fair that they should have a voice in the election of those by whom the rates were made, and by whom the corporate funds were expended. As, however, the electors ought to be the fixed inhabitants of the town, known to contribute to the rates, it was proposed that they should be persons who had been rated for three years, and had regularly paid those rates. Provision was also made in the bill for the case of those individuals who might have omitted to pay their rates. In regard to the governing body, there was to be one only—a mayor and common-council. The common-council would consist of various numbers, generally regulated by the population of the different places; their numbers would vary from fifteen in the smallest places to ninety in the largest. It was proposed that the largest towns, of which there were only twenty, should be divided into wards, and a certain proportion, which would be regulated by the schedules to the bill, of common-councillors should be chosen in each ward. In all the rest of the boroughs it was proposed that the whole common-council should be elected for three years. They were to be elected for three years; but one-third were to go out of office every year, thus taking care that two-thirds of the common-council should have experience in the transaction of town business. The mayor was to be elected annually, and he was to be, during the time of his mayoralty, a justice of peace for the borough and likewise for the county. The town-council was to have the power of appointing a town-clerk and treasurer, and it was left to their option whether they would retain their present town-clerks in their office. If, however, another was chosen, and the dismissal of the present town-clerk was attended with any pecuniary loss to the individual, he was to receive compensation. All the old modes of acquiring the freedom of a corporation, such as birth and apprenticeship, were to be abolished; but all pecuniary rights, such as rights of common, exemption from tolls, &c., would be preserved to the persons now enjoying them, during their lives; in future, however, no person should be a burgess, or admitted into the corporations, except in consequence of the permanent occupancy of a house, and the payment of the borough rates. All exclusive rights of trade were to be abolished, due regard being paid to the pecuniary interests of existing individuals. It was proposed, touching the pecuniary affairs of corporations, that town-councils should have the power to appoint committees in order to manage their financial matters; that their accounts should be regularly audited; and that they should no longer be secret accounts, but regularly brought before the public. Town-councils were further to become the trustees of charitable funds, appointing a committee, if they thought proper, to manage them. For the management o? these funds a separate secretary and treasurer was to be appointed, and provision was made for auditing them in a different manner from the general accounts of the borough. The number of persons chosen for the management of these charitable estates were not to be less than fifteen, and they were to be chosen from among the general body of burgesses. The police, as far as regarded the watching of the towns, were to be placed under the control of the town-council. The power of granting alehouse licences was also to be left to town-councils, or to a committee chosen by them from their own numbers, to grant these licences. It was proposed to divide the one hundred and eighty-three boroughs into two schedules; the greater part of these, one hundred and twenty-nine, were to be placed in schedule A, and would have a commission of the peace granted them. The remaining fifty-four might also, if they chose, have a commission of the peace on application to the crown. With respect to those in schedule A, the town-councils were to have the power of recommending to the crown certain persons whom they thought proper to receive the commission of the peace within the borough; but they were not to have the power of electing magistrates in such sense as that the assent of the crown should not be necessary to perfect the election. These magistrates were not to have the power of sitting in quarter-sessions; but the bill enacted that, on a town-council applying to the crown for the establishment of a court of quarter-sessions, and stating that they were willing to continue the salary paid to the recorder, the recorder should be retained if a barrister of five years' standing. With respect to other towns desiring to have quarter-sessions, but which either had no recorder, or where the recorder was not a barrister of five years' standing, it was intended that the crown should in future have the nomination of that officer. Sir Robert Peel said that he would present no impediment to the introduction of the bill, but would reserve all consideration of its details, every one of which deserved a separate discussion, to a future stage of proceedings. The bill was read a second time, without debate and without opposition, on the 15th of June, and the committee began on tire 22nd of the same month. The first disputed point regarded the fixing of the boundaries of those boroughs whose limits had not been defined in the act passed for that purpose in reference to the reform bill. The bill provided, "That they should be, and remain the same as they are now taken to be, until such time as his majesty shall have been pleased to issue his letters-patent under the great seal, that he may be certified concerning the fit metes and bounds to be allotted unto the same respectively, and until such further time as it shall please his majesty, by advice of his privy-council, upon inspection of the return thereof made by the commissioners unto whom such letters-patent shall have been directed, to declare fit metes and bounds of the said last-named boroughs, and the metes and bounds of the said last-named boroughs thenceforward, for the purposes of this act, shall be the same so declared as last aforesaid." This was objected to by several members, as placing a dangerous power where it ought not to be placed. Sir Robert Peel said, he would consent that the boundaries of the existing boroughs should continue as they were until they should be otherwise settled by parliament: and Lord Stuart Dudley, although a friend of the ministry, moved an amendment to that effect. He was supported by Sir James Graham, Mr. Goulburn, and other members, who argued, that the clause gave the crown a power which the crown ought not to possess, and devolved upon the executive, duties which clearly belonged to the legislature. Lord John Russell said, he had no objection to add words to the effect that his majesty having appointed a commission to settle the boundaries, the report of that commission should be laid before parliament at its meeting, and the boundaries therein named should be and remain the boundaries of these boroughs, unless parliament should otherwise decide. Lord Dudley Stuart, however, pressed his motion to a division; but it was lost by a majority of two hundred and fifty-nine against one hundred and ninety-two. A more important discussion took place on the clause which affected the rights of existing freemen, and the future modes of acquiring freedom in corporations. The bill enacted, "That after the passing of this act no person shall be elected, admitted, or enrolled a citizen, freeman, liveryman, or burgess, of any borough, or by any name, a member of any body corporate in respect of any right or title other than by occupancy and payment of rates within such borough, according to the meaning and provisions of the act." Sir William Follett opposed this sacrifice of freemen; and he moved an amendment to the effect of preserving their rights without interfering with the municipal government of corporate bodies. Government vehemently opposed this amendment; but various members accustomed to go with ministers declared their intention to vote for it. Sir James Graham thought it would simplify the question if the amendments were limited to the rights of freemen under the reform bill, because the question of inchoate rights would arise more properly under another clause. Sir William Follett acceded to this suggestion; but Lord John Russell still maintained that the provision contained in the clause was a necessary consequence of adopting this new municipal franchise; and, if so, ministers were not proposing it for the sake of altering the reform bill, but for the sake of amending the municipal corporations. The amendment said that the clause must not affect either the rights of property or the privileges to which the freemen were at present entitled. Many of these rights and privileges were of a description hurtful to the inhabitants of towns generally; many of them consisted in a monopoly of trades; and many in an exemption of tolls to which the inhabitants generally were liable. Lord Stanley supported the amendment: he could not see how the clause came to appear in a bill which professed to be a measure to provide for the regulation of the municipal corporations in England and Wales. On a division the clause was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy-eight against two hundred and thirty-two.

The question, however, was again raised by Mr. Praed, who moved the following amendment:—"Provided always, and be it enacted, that in every borough, whether the same be a county of itself or not, where the right to vote in the election of members or a member to serve in parliament for such borough, is, according to the laws now in force, enjoyed by persons entitled to vote in virtue of some corporate right, nothing whatsoever in this act contained shall in anywise hinder or prevent any person or persons who now enjoy, or who hereafter, according to the laws now in force, might have acquired such corporate right, from enjoying or acquiring such corporate right for the purpose of voting in such elections." In opposing this amendment, Lord John Russell denied that he was interfering by this municipal bill with the parliamentary franchise: he was not enacting that there should be no freemen; and, therefore, though there would no longer be freemen voting for members of parliament, that was only an incidental consequence of the principle of the bill, which principle was again brought into action, not with a view to parliamentary franchise, but solely with a view to municipal government. The amendment was lost by a majority of two hundred and thirty-four against two hundred and sixty-two. Another amendment, moved by Mr. Ponsonby, for the purpose of protecting inchoate rights of freemen, was equally unsuccessful, being negatived by a majority of two hundred and thirty-four to two hundred and three. The bill arranged all the boroughs into two classes, according to their population, the larger boroughs being divided into wards. In all these boroughs the bill required no qualification in the common-councilmen, except that of being rate-payers. Sir Robert Peel moved as an amendment, "Provided such members of council who shall be elected in boroughs divided into wards shall, at the time of their election, be seized or possessed of personal property of the clear value of L1000, or that they shall be rated on a rental of not less than L40 a-year: and also, provided that all such members elected in towns not divided into wards shall, at the time of their election, be seized or possessed of property, real or personal, of the clear value of L500, or be rated to the relief of the poor on a rental of not less than L20." Sir Robert founded his amendment on what had been the usual practice in enactments regarding corporate towns. It was true that, according to ancient practice, no pecuniary qualifications were required for members of corporations; but the spirit of the charter was, that persons fit for their respective offices should be appointed; and he apprehended that, even in those self-elected corporations, whatever might be their defects in other respects, care was taken to elect persons of wealth and respectability. In opposing the amendment, Lord John Russell, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Mr. Blackburne, and other members, argued, that it was in contradiction to the spirit of the bill, not agreeable to the provisions of the original charters, incapable of being generally and fitly applied, and not productive of any practical benefit. It was lost by a majority of two hundred and sixty-seven against two hundred and four. On the same day Lord Stanley moved an amendment on the clause which fixed the periods of election, which he proposed should take place only every second year; but this also was lost by a majority of two hundred and twenty against one hundred and seventy-six. Mr. Grote attempted to engraft on this part of the bill a modification of his favourite measure of vote by ballot; but the amendment was withdrawn. A division took place on the clause of the bill which declared that the town-clerk should be removable at pleasure; but it was retained by a majority of sixty. Sir James Graham was also unsuccessful in an amendment on the clause which gave to the set of men who should once get into office a formidable instrument for maintaining their predominance, by vesting in the council the power of granting or refusing all licences within the limits of the borough; the original clause was retained by a majority of forty-five. The labours of the committee were finished, and the report received on the 17th of July; and on the 20th the bill was read a third time without a division, the opponents of the bill leaving it to the house of lords to accomplish those ameliorations in its enactments which they deemed requisite.

The day fixed for the second reading of the municipal bill in the house of lords was the 28th of July. On that day petitions were presented against it from Coventry, Doncaster, Lancaster, Worcester, Lincoln, and other corporations, praying to be heard against the bill by counsel; and from Bristol and Liverpool, praying to be heard against it by their respective recorders. It was moved, that the petitioners should be heard by counsel, which Lord Melbourne opposed. The Duke of Wellington and other peers contended that it would be a denial of justice to refuse to hear parties against a measure which affected their character as well as their interests. Lord Brougham also said that there would be no objection to counsel being heard, provided the matter was so arranged as to prevent that hearing from becoming interminable. He suggested that two counsel should state all that was to be stated for the whole of the corporations. In this suggestion Lord Melbourne concurred, and it was agreed to by the whole house, after which the bill was read a second time pro forma. The hearing of the counsel commenced on the 30th of July, and was continued up to the 1st of August. The two gentlemen who appeared for the corporations were Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Knight, who insisted largely on the general character of the bill, as putting an end to all rights enjoyed under any corporate charter in the kingdom; and attacked the reports made by the commission regarding the different boroughs. They claimed a right to tender evidence in order to prove the ignorance and partiality with which the corporations had been treated. After the counsel had concluded their argument, Lord Melbourne gave notice that he would oppose any motion for allowing evidence to be adduced in defence of any corporation. Notwithstanding this notice, however, on the 3rd of August, after his lordship had moved that the house should go into committee on the bill, the Earl of Carnarvon moved, as an amendment, that evidence should now be taken at the bar of the house in support of the allegations of the several petitions. After a long debate on this counter-motion, which was strenuously opposed by the ministers and their party, the house determined in its favour by a majority of one hundred and twenty-four to fifty-four.

Evidence was now heard at the bar, which occupied the house from the 5th to the 8th of August. Witnesses were examined in relation to about thirty boroughs; and the evidence went to show that the commissioners had acted like attorneys employed to get up a case, and with but little prudence, since they chiefly derived their information from partizans of their own opinions. The evidence having been finished, the house went into committee on the bill on the 12th of August, when the Duke of Newcastle proposed the rejection of the bill, by moving that the committee should be taken that day'six months. He did not, however, press his motion to a division, the conservative peers having resolved to pass the bill, in so far as they thought it might do good, after stripping it of those provisions which seemed to be most operative for evil. Lord Lyndhurst proposed the first alteration; He moved a clause preserving to all freemen, to every person who might be a freeman but for this measure, and to their widows and children, or the husband of their daughters or widows, the same rights in the property of the boroughs as would have belonged to them by its laws and customs if this act had not been passed. He did not refer, he said, to general corporate property, but to individual and specific rights of property enjoyed by freemen in many boroughs—rights of commons and others. Lord Melbourne opposed the motion. He would not be disinclined, he said, to consider a proposal for extending the period during which these rights should be preserved further than it was now fixed by the bill; but he could not consent to preserve in perpetuity rights which he believed to be prejudicial both to the freemen themselves and to the whole community. The Earls of Haddington and Ripon supported the amendment, while Lords Plunkett and Brougham, and the Marquis of Lansdowne opposed it, contending that the rights to which the bill put an end were not rights of property. On a division the amendment was carried by one hundred and thirty against thirty-seven; and, thus victorious, Lord Lyndhurst immediately moved another, to preserve the freemen their parliamentary franchise as secured by the reform bill. Lord Melbourne was hostile to this amendment; but as there was no hope of success, he did not call for a division, and it was adopted. Another amendment, moved by Lord Lyndhurst, which required a certain qualification in the town councillors, after stern opposition from the ministers, was carried by a majority of one hundred and twenty to thirty-nine. The next alteration proposed by the opposition peers was an amendment which provided that a fixed proportion of the town-council should hold office for life. This was described by the supporters of the bill as being more glaringly inconsistent with the principle of the bill than any of those which had been adopted. To agree to it, they said, was to lose the bill; but it was carried by one hundred and twenty-six against thirty-nine. Further amendments proposed by the conservative peers were agreed to without much discussion, and without any division. The provisions which declared that persons who were at present justices of the peace under borough charters should cease to be so in future, were struck out, as were the clauses which took from the county magistrates, and gave to the new town-councils the power of granting licenses. The ecclesiastical patronage of the town-council was further limited to the members of the church of England; and it was decided that town-clerks should hold their offices during good behaviour. All towns containing six thousand inhabitants instead of twelve thousand were to be divided into wards; and the number of councillors allotted to each was to be fixed by a compound ratio of members and property. Finally, instead of the power of dividing boroughs into wards, and fixing the number of councillors which each ward should return, being left to the king in council, who could only act through commissioners, it was given to the revising barristers; and instead of the determination of the boundaries of the burgal territory being left to the government of the new councils, the peers retained it in the hands of parliament. The bill, as amended, was passed by the house of lords on the 28th of August, and the amendments were brought before the commons on the 31st. Lord John Russell in bringing them before the house, said that the lords, by their mode of proceeding, had caused their own amendments to be viewed in a more unfavourable light than would have belonged to them, if they had merely been the result of calm deliberation. The question, however, for the house was, whether the bill even as altered, might not be moulded into an efficient instrument of good municipal government. He would not recommend the adoption of the amendments by which town-clerks were made irremovable, and by which borough magistrates who were now justices by virtue of their offices, should continue to be so. Neither was he favourable to the provision inserted by the lords, that a certain number of councillors, under the name of aldermen, should be elected for life; he would rather propose that the same number of members of the town-council as the lords proposed should be elected for life, should be chosen for a period of six years, and that one half should always be made at 'the expiration of three years. Another amendment, from which he did not intend to dissent altogether, regarded the divisions of towns into wards; he proposed that instead of six thousand inhabitants there should be nine thousand in any borough so divided. As regards the lords' amendment, which gave the crown the power of nominating justices, he proposed that the house should not agree with the alteration. In most of the other amendments he concurred; but he would not ask the house to accede to the provision which limited the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage to such members of the town-councils as might belong to the church of England, or to that clause which perpetuated the exemption from toll enjoyed by freemen in certain boroughs. The radical section of the commons blamed ministers for conceding too much, and indulged in violent language against the house of lords. Mr. Roebuck asked why the real representatives of the people should bear the insults of the lords, when they had the power to crush them? He was an advocate for democracy, and the sooner they brought the matter to an issue the better. It was necessary to stir up the people upon this subject to something like a revolution. On the part of the conservative members of the house there was, also, a difference of opinion; some thought that the amendments of the lords should be preserved in all their integrity, while others were of opinion that the modifications proposed by ministers should be adopted.