PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

During this session the proposal for removing the civil disabilities of the Jews was brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer himself, and was carried through the commons, but was rejected by the lords. Mr. Rippon also renewed a proposal he had made in 1834, for the expulsion of the bishops from the house of lords; but his motion was lost by an overwhelming majority. Mr. O'Connell moved for leave to bring in a bill to reform the whole house of lords, by making that body elective, a motion which gave rise only to laughter. Mr. Grote also brought forward his annual motion for vote by ballot; but it was lost by a majority of one hundred and thirty-nine against fifty-one. Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of August, by the king in person.



THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.

The royal speech had announced that tranquillity prevailed in Ireland; but yet that country was not in a state of quiescence. Agitation was still at work: societies and combinations were being formed, and the angry passions of the multitude lashed almost into fury. At this time the authorities were enforcing the payment of tithe; and this excited the wrath of the leaders of the Popish party. This wrath was aggravated by the refusal of the house of lords to create, by passing the ministerial municipal bill for Ireland, a mass of Catholic corporations, of which there was every reason to apprehend that, while they would not have any useful duties to discharge as machines for municipal government, they would become powerful and legalized engines for working out the great aim of the Papists—the destruction of the Protestant church. The clauses which went to reconstruct the Irish corporations were struck out by the lords on the 17th of May; and on the following day Mr. O'Connell put forth a letter "to the people of England," the object of which was to rouse them to show their gratitude to Ireland for the aid which she had lent them in carrying the Reform Act, by destroying the character and rights of the house of lords. This epistle, however, was addressed to deaf ears; his sentiments rather tended to call forth expressions of opinion that the lords should fearlessly exercise their constitutional rights. In his letter, he had threatened to reorganize agitation; and finding his exertions to that end useless in England, he resolved to cany out his threat in Ireland. The course which it was wished that the people of Ireland should adopt, was explained by Mr. Shiel in clear terms. It was wished that a strenuous and simultaneous movement of the popular masses should take place; that the millions of Ireland should be roused; and that the might which slumbered in her arm might be developed; above all, that "the active system of organization should again be strenuously applied, with its weekly meetings, its appeals to the people, its enthusiasm, and exciting eloquence." Doubts were expressed by some persons of the prudence of forming a permanent association at present. Mr. Pigott, a barrister, however, suggested an expedient, by which all the advantages of association might be secured without its name. He recommended that the requisitionists, who had called a public meeting in Dublin for the 23rd of May, should constitute themselves an open committee, with power to add to their numbers, which should meet from time to time as occasion might require, and should arrange communications with the most active inhabitants of the different towns and districts who might be disposed to second their object, in order to obtain petitions from all parts of the country. This plan was adopted; and the objects of the new agitation were declared to be municipal institutions, founded on the same principles of popular election and control which had been adopted in England, and the speedy settlement of the tithe question. This committee dispatched circulars all over Ireland, urging the people to hold public meetings for the purpose of voting petitions to parliament on these two questions, and directing the petitioners how to draw up their petitions. It was soon found, however, that this plan was not effective, and that, therefore, a revival of the machinery of the Catholic association would be necessary, in order to exercise the required influence over the public mind, and to raise funds for the support of agitation. The "petition committee," as it was called, complained in a meeting, held on the 1st of July, that petitions came in slowly, and that the people of Ireland were dormant and dead to what ought to be now their feelings, of nationality. Under these circumstances it was deemed prudent to "recreate the active system of organization devised by Mr. O'Connell, with its weekly meetings," and other appliances. A "general association" was now formed on the model of the Catholic association, using the same species of influence, but bearing another name and professing different objects. The two declared objects of the association were to obtain the abolition of tithes and municipal corporations; to these were added a minute attention to the approaching registrations, in order to increase the democratic party in the house of commons. These and the other purposes of the association required money; and accordingly the "justice rent" was established. The association was to meet once a week in the corn-exchange; Mr. O'Connell presented to it the chair of the Catholic association, which had been left in his possession; and the walls of its place of meeting displayed in large characters these words:—"Scotland has municipal reform; England has municipal reform; Ireland has been declared unworthy of municipal reform." After Mr. O'Connell's arrival, in August, the association was put into full operation. From him proceeded addresses to the people of England and Ireland, the complete organization of the justice rent, the appointment of committees, and of a reporter on the election registry of every county, city, and town of Ireland. It was resolved that officers, called pacificators, should be appointed in every parish in Ireland. Each parish was to contain two pacificators; one named by the clergyman of the majority of the parish, and the other by the inhabitants themselves. There was, therefore, the general association sitting in Dublin, holding its weekly meetings, with its registry inspectors, and its agitating pacificators scattered all over the country. It was to maintain this system that justice money was required; and in general the business of each weekly meeting consisted in announcing the amount of "rent" collected during the preceding week, or in receiving more. There was talking at these meetings, it is true, but the term business can scarcely be applied to the verbose and unmeaning speeches in which the orators indulged. The usual topics were the greatness and determination of Ireland; the demand for justice by getting new corporations and abolishing tithes; the flattery of every one who sent money to the association; and the abuse of those who differed from the agitators in opinion. Yet Mr. O'Connell and his party did not fail to stir up the evil passions of the deluded multitude. These "thundering resolutions" were put forth by the association:—"Resolved—That it is incompatible with the principles of religious liberty that any man should be compelled to pay for the ordinances of a church with which he is not joined in communion. That, as under the present appropriation of tithe-composition, a tribute is levied from the whole nation for the uses of the church of only the one-tenth portion of the community, the people of Ireland are, therefore, justified in demanding the total extinction of an assessment so applied. That no settlement of the tithe question can give satisfaction to the people of Ireland which is not founded on the foregoing principle. That the people of Ireland be called upon not to desist from all legal and constitutional means of redress, till they have obtained full and complete relief from an impost equally oppressive and degrading. That, in carrying out these resolutions, the representatives of the Irish people should always keep in mind the adopting such a prudent and wise course as shall enable them to realise for the Irish nation the greatest possible quantity of good, and as shall also enable them to support and sustain in office, without any violation of principle, the first and only true and honest government that has ever been known in Ireland." This call upon the peasantry not to desist from seeking the abolition of tithes "by all legal and constitutional means of address," by no means tending to diminish the resistance still shown to every attempt to enforce the steps necessary to the recovery of tithes, where a protecting force did not attend. The process-server was still hunted; mobs still attempted to set aside sales of distrained cattle; and now that the efficacy of the exchequer-process, by merely posting notices instead of service, had been felt, the writs of that court would have been equally set at defiance by brute force, but for the power which they possessed of compelling police and military aid. A scene of bloodshed occurred at Dunkerrin, in the county of Tipperary. A mob attacked a commissioner of the exchequer and his party, in the act of serving a writ, and the bailiff was murdered on the spot, while one of the murderers was killed by a shot from the police. Mr. O'Connell and the association demanded justice for the death of the latter; but not a word was said on the heinousness of his crime, or a syllable of regret was uttered concerning the death of the bailiff.



FOREIGN RELATIONS.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

The whole Spanish Peninsula was torn with political dissensions. Revolutions and counter revolutions disturbed British relations with Portugal especially, and prevented the execution of a treaty of commerce which was looked for in England, as a benefit to both nations. England sympathised too much with the faithless queens of both the governments of the Iberian Peninsula, which had the effect of protracting the disturbances which prevailed, and of exciting angry feelings against England. The gallant men who as British subjects volunteered to serve the queen 'of Portugal were refused their pay, and treated with contumely and injury, just as the British legion in Spain had been used.

The relation of the Sublime Porte to England was also a source of embarrassment, especially to the former country. On the one hand, the pressure of Russia, jealous of her predominating influence, and on the other, the efforts of Britain and France to counteract the exclusive character which that influence was assuming, imposed on the divan the necessity of giving satisfaction to all the competitors for favour. During this year an English merchant of Constantinople, of the name of Churchill, while shooting in the neighbourhood of Scutari, accidentally wounded a Turkish boy. He was dragged to the guardhouse of Scutari, where the officer on duty ordered him first to be bastinadoed, and then sent to the governor of Scutari. The governor declined interfering, and caused him to be conveyed to the office of the reis effendi, or foreign minister, by whom he was thrown into prison. Mr. Churchill immediately addressed a letter to the British consul, acquainting him with the accident that had occurred, and the manner in which he had been treated, claiming, as a British subject, the interference in his behalf. The consul sent a dragoman to the Porte to reclaim his countryman, promising to keep him in custody till the accusation brought against him had been inquired into. This application was rejected; and the British ambassador then sent his interpreter to the reis effendi, who promised that the prisoner should be delivered over to his own authorities. Instead of this promise, however, being observed, Mr. Churchill was thrown into the Bagnio, and fettered in iron chains, by virtue of an order granted by the sultan. The British interpreter again waited on the reis effendi, and expressed to him the surprise Lord Ponsonby had experienced on witnessing so direct and intentional an infringement of the treaties existing between the king of England and the sultan; committed, too, by the very individual appointed by the Porte to preside over their strict and scrupulous observance. The reis effendi now desired one of his officers to proceed with the English interpreter to the Bagnio, and cause the detained merchant to be given up; but the governor of the Bagnio refused to comply with the request, pretending that since the prisoner had been placed under his care in virtue of a firman, he could not release him without a written order from the Porte. Lord Ponsonby now addressed an official note, stating that, as the minister of foreign affairs had violated one of the most important stipulations of the treaties existing between Great Britain and Turkey, he was obliged to declare to the government that he would not any longer hold official communication with his excellency, and to submit to the Sublime Porte, and emphatically to declare to the sultan himself, his just complaint against a minister who had dared to violate the laws of his own sovereign, and insult the British nation. This step procured the liberation of Mr. Churchill; but Lord Ponsonby refused to consider this alone as any reparation of the breach of the treaties securing to British subjects the right of being tried and punished only through the agency of their own official representatives. His lordship insisted that the reis effendi should be dismissed from his office. He insisted upon this the more strenuously on account of the predominating influence of Russia; for if the injured party had been a Russian subject, the Turkish government would have hastened to make humble apologies, and would have consented to give any satisfaction which the offended dignity of the czar might have required. The Porte endeavoured to mitigate the demand lay negociation; but Lord Ponsonby refused to accept of any satisfaction which did not include the dismissal of the minister. As the Porte seemed to think it below its dignity to grant such a request when merely made by an ambassador, he said he would refer the matter to his government at home. The British merchants, likewise, resident at Constantinople, transmitted an address to Viscount Palmerston, representing the necessity of supporting the demand made by the ambassador. They remarked:—"We will concede that the first outrage was committed by subordinate local authorities, whose acts might admit of excuse or explanation; but the subsequent imprisonment was deliberately ordered by a high public functionary, the official depositary-, in fact, of the treaties existing between the two countries, one who could not be ignorant of the privileges they guaranteed, and who was not ignorant that in the instance in question he was grossly and intentionally violating them. Considering, therefore, that the present is not the only instance, although the most flagrant one, of personal violence offered to British subjects, we cannot but see in their repeated occurrence, more especially of late, an intentional infraction of the treaties, and, indeed, the existence of some fixed design on the part of the Turkish government to assume to itself a power of control in such matters which it would be dangerous ever to concede." Before the determination of the British cabinet could be known, the divan of Constantinople had resolved to yield: the reis effendi was dismissed, with a monthly pension of 10,000 piastres; but it was on the pretence that bad health disabled him from regularly attending to the duties of his office. It was said afterwards, that the British ministry viewed the matter in a less serious light than that in which it had been viewed by Lord Ponsonby; and that they were not inclined to consider the demand he had made as one on which it was necessary to insist. It is certain, indeed, that the dispatches of the Turkish envoy ill London, subsequent to the dismissal of the reis effendi, assured the divan of the readiness of the British ministry to settle the controversy on conditions much milder than those on which Lord Ponsonby had stated to be the only terms which his majesty's government could consider proper reparation for the insult offered to its dignity. It is also certain that the credit of the British ambassador, whose successful firmness was neutralised by his government, was greatly diminished at the Porte.



CHAPTER XLVII.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Meeting of Parliament..... Consideration of the State of Ireland..... Irish Municipal Corporations Bill..... Question of Establishing a System of Poor-Law in Ireland..... Irish Tithe Question..... Question of Church- Rates..... The Church of Scotland..... Notices of Motions for Constitutional Changes..... Operation of the New Poor- Laws..... The Affairs of Canada..... State of the Banking System, &c...... Consideration of the Foreign Policy of England under the Whig Administration..... Motion on the State of the Nation..... Illness and Death of the King..... Remarks on his Reign, Character, &c.



MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1837}

Parliament reassembled on the 31st of January. The session was opened by commission; and the speech of the commissioners referred to the contests in Spain, and the recent events in Portugal. The speech also called the attention of both houses to the state of Canada, stating that the reports of the commissioners appointed to inquire into which, would be laid before them. It further recommended to their serious deliberation the provisions which would be submitted to them for the improvement of the law and the administration of justice, and conveyed his majesty's desire that they should consult upon such further measures as might give increased stability to the established church. The revenues, moreover, formed a subject of congratulation in the speech, and an early renewal of inquiries into the operation of the act permitting the establishment of joint-stock banks. The concluding topic of the speech was Ireland; such measures as might improve the condition of that country were recommended to be adopted. The present constitution of the municipal corporations of that country, the collection of tithes, and the establishment of some legal provision for the poor were especially noticed as subjects worthy of their attention.

The address in the lords was moved by the Earl of Fingal, and seconded by Lord Suffield. In the commons the address was moved by Mr. Sandford, and seconded by Mr. Stuart Villiers. The debate that followed was enlivened by Mr. Roebuck, who made a violent assault on the whole system of ministerial policy. Sir Robert Peel referred to those parts of the speech relating to the affairs of Spain and Portugal. His remarks with reference to Spain were confined to that passage in the address which expressed the satisfaction of the house that his majesty's co-operating force had rendered useful assistance to her Catholic majesty. Whatever opinion he might hold on the policy of the quadruple alliance, he had always considered it our duty to fulfil the treaty so long as we stood pledged to it. By that treaty we stipulated to give the assistance of a naval force to the arms of the queen of Spain; and he supported the address on the understanding that the aid we had given had been strictly of that character. The distinction was important. The grant of a military force might have supposed an interference with the civil dissensions and party conflicts of Spain. Might not the precedent be equally adopted by despotic governments claiming a right to support absolute principles among their neighbours? where then would be the peace of Europe? The next paragraph in the address illustrated the danger of interfering in the civil affairs of other countries. We express our regret that "events in Portugal have occurred which, for a time, threaten to disturb the internal peace of the country." These events are but the corollary of the revolution in that country in 1834, and which was then called in the speech from the throne "a happy result." A consequence of this "happy result" is that we have now six sail of the line in the Tagus. For what purpose? To defend the queen of that country from an attack on the part of her own subjects; and to protect the lives and property of the English residing there from the danger with which they are threatened. In reply, Lord Palmerston remarked, that, "when we stated that the effect of the treaty in 1834 was to put an end to the civil war in Portugal, we did not take upon ourselves the responsibility of the government of that kingdom in all future times, or undertake that it should be henceforth free from the civil disturbances to which every country was liable." This might be true; but if the last revolution in Portugal was the result of the one which we had been instrumental in bringing about, then we were in no slight degree responsible for its occurrence.



CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE OF IRELAND.

Ireland was still the cardinal point of our domestic politics. At this time, in fact, Irish politics had acquired more importance than ever. The state of that country was brought before parliament this session, in a petition from the Protestants, setting forth the dangers by which they were surrounded from the effects of the agitation which everywhere prevailed. This petition was presented to the lords by the Marquis of Downshire on the 28th of April, and it was the occasion of an interesting debate on the state of Ireland. The topics insisted on, however, were for the most part identical with those which had for a series of years been repeatedly adduced in the commons, so that a repetition of them is unnecessary. The debate unfolded one great fact: namely, that the Protestant party were not behindhand with the Catholics in the vigour and perseverance of their agitation.

Government lost no time in bringing the politics of Ireland before parliament. On the 7th of April Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the Irish municipal corporations. The bill differed from that of the last year on one material point only. By the former measure the town-councils were not allowed to interfere in the appointment of sheriffs, which was vested in the crown; but they were now authorised to nominate or suggest a certain number of persons for that office; the power of selection, rejection, and appointment being given to the lord-lieutenant. Sir John Hobhouse made an intimation, that the fate of this measure would decide that of the cabinet; he asked of the party opposite, if they succeeded in throwing out this bill and so coming into office, upon what principle they hoped to govern Ireland? Was it by Orange, neckerchiefs and acclamations that they expected to do so? They ought to be prepared to give a decided answer to the question. Sir Robert Peel said, that he doubted the right of any one to catechise his party on the results of a contingency. The motion, which was merely for leave to bring in the bill, was not opposed, and the two parties had therefore no opportunity of making trial of their strength on a division.

The order of the day was read for going into committee on the reform of municipal corporations on the 20th of February. Lord Francis Egerton moved an instruction similar to that which he had brought forward in the last session, to the effect that the committee be empowered to make provisions for the abolition of corporations in Ireland, and for such arrangements as might be necessary on their abolition for securing the efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and good government of Ireland. A long discussion ensued and was adjourned. On the following day Mr. Serjeant Jackson delivered a long speech, which was chiefly directed against the government of Lord Mulgrave. Mr. Vesey followed in the same track. The bill was supported, on the other hand, by Mr. E. L. Bulwer, Lord Howick, and Mr. Roebuck. The latter asked Sir Robert Peel this plain question:—"Can he pretend to carry on the government of Ireland on entirely different principles from those of Great Britain? Does he believe that, at this period of man's history, and by the side of the most enlightened nation of the earth, doctrines of government suited for the meridian of St. Petersburg can be carried into actual practice? In a word, Does he believe that the system of Protestant supremacy can be continued in Ireland without civil war?" On the third night of the debate, Sir James Graham delivered a powerful speech in support of Lord Francis Egerton's amendment. Mr. Shiel followed, in a speech which was more personal than argumentative. Sir Robert Peel deprecated this mode of conducting the debate. He had been reproached, he continued, by Lord Howick for not having earlier seen the necessity of yielding to the Catholic claims. Would the noble lord ask of his noble colleague of the foreign department, why he was not an earlier convert than he had proved to reform? Would he put the same question to the head of the present administration? If it were blindness in him not to foresee in 1825 the necessity of concession to the Catholics, was not the blindness of Lord Melbourne as great when, in 1826, he even opposed the transfer of representatives from Penryn to Manchester? Mr. O'Connell followed, urging his usual topics—the long misgovernment of Ireland, and the necessity of the repeal of the union as her only chance of obtaining justice. After a reply from Lord John Russell, the house divided; when Lord Francis Egerton's amendment was negatived by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two hundred and forty-two.

Little discussion took place on the bill when in committee. The third reading was moved on the 10th of April, when Mr. Goulburn opposed the measure as pregnant with danger to the church, and tending by its renewed agitation to place the two houses of parliament in an undesirable situation. Another long debate ensued, in which the bill was defended by Colonel Thompson, Lords Morpeth and John Russell, and Messrs. Bulwer, Charles Villiers, and O'Connell; and opposed by Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, and Sir Robert Peel. The debate lasted two nights; and on a division the bill was carried by a majority of three hundred and two against two hundred and forty-seven.

The bill was introduced to the house of peers by Lord Melbourne on the 13th of April; and the second reading was fixed for the 25th of the same month. On its introduction the Duke of Wellington gave no opinion on the subject of the bill, but contented himself with observing, that it was only one of the three measures relating to Ireland which had been recommended to the consideration of the house in the speech from the throne. He added, that, as he thought it desirable before the house decided on the present measure it should have the other two before them, he hoped the noble viscount would appoint a more distant day for its consideration. Lord Melbourne objected to this, stating at the same time that he could not see any necessary connexion between the three measures. In moving its second reading, Lord Melbourne dwelt at great length upon the good effects which had already resulted from the grant of a similar boon to England. On these grounds he called upon the house to accede to the measure. It was only a little to give, but a great deal to withhold. The Duke of Wellington said, that he would agree to the second reading of the bill, on the principle that the existing corporations ought not to be continued. He would not, however, pledge himself to consent to the present measure, to various details of which he had strong objections. He would endeavour to remove these in committee; in the meanwhile he could not but express his surprise that Lord Melbourne should have again brought forward such a measure. Lord Lyndhurst expressed similar sentiments. In reference to the surprise expressed by the Duke of Wellington that the bill should have been reintroduced, Lord Melbourne said the case was not a singular one; and he reminded the duke that he had introduced and carried a measure to which he had been opposed. Lord Brougham regretted that, from the tone of the speeches of the Duke of Wellington, he was led to believe that they would only throw away some five or six weeks of their time in unprofitable discussions on the subject, and be left at the end of this session where they were at the close of the last. This proved to be the true interpretation of those speeches. On the 5th of May, when the order of the day was read for the house to resolve itself into committee on the bill, the Duke of Wellington rose, and moved to defer the committal till the 9th of June. His reason for asking this delay was, that he was anxious to see the result of the deliberations of the other house of parliament on the pending measures of Irish tithe and Irish poor-law. Lord Melbourne objected to the proposed postponement as inconvenient in itself, and dangerous in the motive on which it was grounded. There was no connexion between the church and corporation bills; and if the house of commons should follow the example of the lords, and refuse to consider one set of bills until the lords had passed another to their satisfaction, he apprehended their lordships would not have the best of the struggle. As for the appropriation clause, he denied, as his grace had intimated, that it had been abandoned; it existed in the new bill as strongly as in the former one. The Duke of Wellington replied, that though he objected to much of the present measure, he was not adverse to the establishment, under certain circumstances, of local jurisdictions in Ireland. The Earl of Wicklow and Lord Fitzgerald made yet ampler concessions than his grace; and the Marquis of Lansdowne argued on this, that they assented to the principles of the bill; and that, therefore, no further delay should take place in its progress. Lord Brougham said that he drew no happy augury of the fate of the bill from the very significant speech of the Duke of Wellington. He would not say any sinister motive lurked in his proposition for delay; but if he was averse to the present measure, as he appeared to be, why did he not throw it out altogether? It was very well to talk of amendments; but their lordships would so alter the bill, that the man who drew it would not know it again. Although the different sections under the duke's command might move by different routes, they would all meet in the end. On a division the motion for postponement was carried by a majority of one hundred and ninety-two against one hundred and fifteen.

Although the postponement decided on was for more than one month, there appeared to be little probability that either the tithe or the poor-rate bill would be before the lords by the assigned period for resuming the municipal corporations bill. Under these circumstances, when the 9th of June arrived, Lord Lyndhurst rose to move a further postponement of the bill till the 3rd of July next. His lordship took occasion again to state his objections to the measure. Lord Melbourne opposed the further postponement of the bill; but on a division the motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and five against one hundred and nineteen.



QUESTION OF ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF POOR-LAWS IN IRELAND.

A board of commissioners had been for some time busied with the consideration of a system of poor-laws in Ireland, and in the last session a report containing the result of their inquiries was laid before parliament. This report, however, was not satisfactory to government. They thought it desirable that some inquiry should be made as to how far it might be practicable to introduce into Ireland a system of relief based upon the principles of the new English poor-law. For this purpose, Mr. Nicholls, one of the commissioners, was sent to Ireland to prosecute the matter by personal investigation. The report of Mr. Nicholls was very able, and on it government grounded the measure which they intended to bring forward on the subject. This measure was introduced in the commons by Lord John Russell on the 13th of February. In introducing it, his lordship called the attention of the house to that part of the king's speech at the opening of the session, in which the establishment of some legal provision for the poor was recommended. At the same time he laid on the table of the house a copy of Mr. Nicholl's report upon the subject. In his speech, his lordship first dwelt upon the benefits derivable to a country from a well-administered system of poor-laws; upon its tendency to preserve peace, prevent vagrancy, diminish crime, and establish harmony among all classes of society. Having dwelt on this subject at length, Lord John Russell then stated the leading provisions of the bill as recommended by the commissioner. With respect to the expense of the system, he said, it had been calculated that the whole average charge for each person in the English workhouses, including lodging, fuel, clothing, and diet, was one shilling and sixpence per week. If, therefore, we take one hundred union houses, each containing eight hundred inmates, and suppose them all fully occupied, the annual expense for the whole would be L312,000.

In order to understand the nature of the bill brought in by Lord John Russell, however, it is necessary to give a brief extract of the report made by Mr. Nicholls. He stated that he found the people almost universally favourable to the introduction of a poor-law. But with respect to the question of how far the introduction of the English poor-law was practicable in Ireland, two difficulties suggested themselves—first, whether the workhouse system could be relied on as a test of destitution in Ireland; and secondly, whether the means and machinery existed there for the formation of unions as in England. The great principle of the workhouse system is, that the support which is afforded at the public charge there should be less desirable than that to be obtained by independent exertion. It would be impossible to make the lodging, clothing, and diet of the inmates of an Irish workhouse inferior to those of the Irish peasantry, and therefore this security would not be found for the efficiency of the workhouse-test. On the other hand, it is to be remembered that the Irish are naturally or by habit a migratory people, fond of change, full of hope, and eager for experiment. They had never been tied down to one limited settlement, and consequently confinement of any kind would be irksome, and therefore the test of the workhouse is likely to prove fully as efficient in Ireland as in England. With respect to the' supply of local machinery for the execution of the law, Mr. Nicholls considered that by making the unions sufficiently large, there would be no difficulty of obtaining boards of guardians of competent intelligence and activity. These might, he said, be elected by the contributors to the county cess; but Mr. Nicholls thought that, in the first instance, large general powers should be vested in some competent authority to control and direct the proceedings of the board of guardians, and, where necessary, to supersede their functions altogether. He further proposed, that the same central authority should be empowered to dispense with the election of the first board of guardians, and to appoint such persons as it should think proper to act in their stead. It was further proposed, that the number of magistrates acting officially as guardians should not exceed one-third of the elected members of the board; and that no clergyman or minister of any denomination should be eligible to act as ex-officio guardian. The enactment of a provision for the destitute at the common charge, would give the community a right to interfere with the proceedings of individuals, so as to prevent the spread of destitution, and enable it to guard itself from loss and damage by the negligence or obstinacy of any of its members. With this view, it was recommended that the central authority should appoint, or empower the board of guardians to appoint, one or more wardens or head-boroughs for every parish, who might superintend the affairs of the district. Assuming the general practicability and expediency of establishing a system of poor-law in Ireland on principles the same with those of the English law, Mr. Nicholls proceeded to consider the details of its application in that country. It was proposed that all relief out of the workhouse should be absolutely refused. Another point to be insisted upon, was, that no individual of a family should be admitted unless all its members entered the house. All relief was to be given by the orders and direction of the central authority. With respect to the formation and regulation of the local machinery, the report recommended that, as in England, the appointment of guardians should be vested in the rate-payers and owners of property in the union. A scale was proposed, by which the number of votes possessed by an individual rate-payer might be raised from one to five, as his rating increased from five pounds to two hundred. The commissioners had proposed that the owner should pay two-thirds of the rate, and that the remainder should fall on the tenant: Mr. Nicholls thought that it would be better to divide the charge equally between the two parties. It was not recommended to establish a parochial settlement in Ireland, as the habits of the people were migratory: if a law settlement should be established, it would be a union of settlement, making the limits of the union the boundary. The simpler the conditions on which this settlement was made to depend, it would be the better. They might, it was stated, be limited to two—birth, and actual residence for a term of years; but, on the whole, it would be better to dispense with settlement altogether. One great object in the establishment of a legal relief for the destitute would be the right it afforded to take measures for the suppression of mendicancy. The present state of Ireland, and the feelings and habits of the people, threw considerable difficulty in the way of an immediate enforcement of such a prohibition. The best method, it was stated, would probably be to enact a general prohibition, and to cast upon the central authority the responsibility of bringing the act into operation in the several unions, as the workhouses became fitted for the reception of inmates. With respect to emigration, Mr. Nicholls did not think it should be looked to as an ordinary resource; the necessity for its adoption would be regarded as an indication of disease, which it would be better to prevent than thus to relieve. The source, however, would be one which must be employed as a means of relief whenever any population became excessive in any district, and no opening for migration to other districts could be found. In the conclusion of his report, Mr. Nicholls considered the nature and appointment of the central authority upon which the whole administration of the new system would depend. He was in favour of its being carried into effect by the existing English board, inasmuch as the object being to carry the English system into Ireland, it could only be done by persons practically conversant with its administration.

Such were the principles on which the measure introduced by Lord John Russell was founded. On its introduction, Irish members of all parties expressed their satisfaction with it. Mr. O'Connell, however, though he did not oppose it, expressed himself less sanguine as to its beneficial results. The hundred workhouses which it was proposed to erect would afford shelter and relief to eighty thousand persons in Ireland only; and he asked, what proportion that bore to the mass of destitution in Ireland? He objected also to the proposed gradual introduction of the measure. They would thereby create a state of transition, during which neither relief nor charity would be afforded to the suffering population of the country. He disapproved, also, of that part of the plan which confined relief and employment to the workhouses. There was no part of Ireland, he said, which might not be made ten times more productive than it was, and yet it was proposed to feed men in idleness in a workhouse. The system of workhouses acted well in England, where a sort of slave labour was adopted in them, to force the idle to seek employment elsewhere; but what could be expected from it in Ireland where men worked for twopence per day? Many expected that a poor-rate in Ireland would prevent the influx of Irish labourers into England; there could not be a greater mistake: unmarried men would still go to England; and so would the married, leaving their families to be maintained in the workhouse. The experiment, he saw, must be made; and, notwithstanding his objections, he would certainly give every aid in working out its details. Mr. O'Connell urged the necessity of extensive emigration on the consideration of government; but Sir Robert Peel said that he was not sanguine as to any benefits to be derived therefrom. The long sea-voyage would always stand in the way of its adoption to any extent. As to public works, to vote money merely to employ people, that would only aggravate existing evils by interfering with the natural demand for labour. Sir Robert Peel, however, was disposed cordially to support the measure in its general objects; as was also Lord Stanley.

The second reading of the bill did not take place till the end of April. The interval seems to have confirmed Mr. O'Connell in his hostility to the measure. It was not his intention directly to oppose it—some measure of the kind was inevitable; but his deliberate judgment was, that it would aggravate, instead of mitigate, the existing evils of the Irish peasantry. Those evils he ascribed to English misgovernment: the distinct and direct object of the penal laws was to enforce ignorance and poverty by act of parliament. For a century, the Irish had had laws requiring the people to be ignorant, and punishing them for being industrious. And what, he asked, were the natural consequences of this legislation? He entered into a variety of statistical details to prove that, with a less fertile soil, the quantity of agricultural produce raised in England was as four to one compared with that of Ireland; though, according to the number of acres under cultivation, it ought not to exceed two to one. He then proceeded to read numerous extracts from the reports of the commissioners, descriptive of the extreme misery of the Irish peasantry. He described men as lying in bed for want of food; turning thieves in order to be sent to jail; lying on rotten straw in mud cabins, with scarcely any covering; feeding on unripe potatoes and yellow weed, and feigning sickness, in order to get into hospitals. He continued:—"This is the condition of a country blest by nature with fertility, but barren from the want of cultivation, and whose inhabitants stalk through the land enduring the extremity of misery and want. Did we govern ourselves? Who did this? You, Englishmen!—I say, you did it? It is the result of your policy and domination!" With respect to the bill before the house, Mr. O'Connell ridiculed the proposition of relieving the destitution of 2,300,000 persons by building poor-houses to shelter eighty thousand at the expense of L312,000 a year. The charities in Dublin alone amounted to half that sum, and the farmers gave away in kind from a million to a million and a half yearly. As for tranquillizing the country, Mr. O'Connell said that the bill would not have any such effect. On the contrary, as all relief was to be given in the workhouse, every man who was refused would have a pretext for praedial resistance. The man refused would be the very man to resent the refusal; he would go to others and induce them to adopt his quarrel, and perhaps to avenge what he would consider to be his wrong. In conclusion, Mr. O'Connell admitted that he was opposed to a law of settlement, and also to a labour-rate: he thought emigration should be tried on a large scale; and he was still an advocate for a tax on absentees. However much he disapproved of the bill, he would not vote against it: he had not moral courage enough to resist a poor-law altogether. A long and angry debate ensued, which issued in nothing practical.

The only point in the measure in which any serious opposition was raised, respected the law of settlement. On the 12th of May, when the order of the day was read for the house to go into committee on the bill, Mr. Lucas moved,—"That it be an instruction to the committee to introduce a provision for settlement, so as more justly to apportion the pecuniary charges to be incurred and levied under the name of poor-rates." Mr. Lucas suggested a particular scheme of settlement, by which he conceived most of the evils attaching to the system as hitherto practised might be avoided; but his statement of its nature and probable operation was not very intelligible, and his motion was negatived, after some discussion of the subject, by a majority of one hundred and twenty against sixty-eight. The bill did not proceed beyond this stage of its progress, in consequence of the demise of the crown.



IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Another cardinal point of Irish policy remaining to be settled, as pointed out to the consideration of parliament in the speech from the throne, was the tithe question. This subject was brought forward in the house of commons on the 1st of May by Lord Morpeth, who, in introducing it, said, that it was the fifth measure which had been brought forward in the last three years for the adjustment of Irish tithes. His present plan was this. He proposed to deduct thirty per cent, from the tithe composition, so as to make a rent-charge on the owner of the first estate of inheritance, in the proportion of L70 to every L100 of the tithe. By the bill of last year power was given to the commissioners of woods and forests to collect the rent-charge; but this was thought to make the clergy too dependant on the officers of government, and they were, therefore, now allowed to collect it for themselves. The provisions of former bills for the revising or reopening of compositions were to be reserved. With respect to the regulation of the incomes of the various benefices, Lord Morpeth proposed to adopt the scale of last session, as recommended by Lord Stanley, with the exception of the minimum of L300, which Lord Stanley had taken as the lowest point of reduction to which the clerical income should be liable. The most novel provision proposed was that which went to apply a portion of the clergyman's income to the purposes of general education. Lord Morpeth observed, that by a statute, the 15th of the 28th of Henry III., it was enacted, that "every incumbent in each parish in Ireland should keep or cause to be kept within his parish, a school to learn English; and that every archbishop, bishop, &c., at the time of his induction should take a corporal oath, that, being so admitted or inducted, he shall to his best endeavour himself teach the English tongue to all that are under his rule and governance." Penalties were laid both on the bishop and clergyman for the breach of this statute; and the oath imposed by the act was taken by all rectors and vicars. The question was, continued Lord Morpeth, had this obligation been complied with? There were 2400 parishes in Ireland; and it appeared from the report of the commissioners of inquiry into Irish education, there were only seven hundred and eighty-two schools, the number of benefices being 1242, and the amount of the contributions of the clergy L3299. It appeared from that report, indeed, that, though there were many benefices in which there was no school, yet the act of Henry VIII. was sufficiently complied with by the annual payment of forty-shillings to a schoolmaster. Attempts had been made to revise the act in 1767, and again in the year 1806; but these were abandoned. Lord Morpeth now proposed to raise a fixed rate of ten per cent, upon the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland, including the incomes of the dignitaries of the church as well as of the parochial clergy; to take effect not on the present holders, but on their successors. The plan of education which he proposed was not to be confined to the teaching of the English language only; it was to combine instruction in letters, lessons of morality and religion, and that upon a national system, comprehending all sects and denominations. Lord Morpeth, however, did not, he said, intend to propose resolutions which would call upon the house to pledge themselves to the whole of his plan; he contented himself for the present with moving, "That it is expedient to commute the tithes of Ireland into a rent-charge, payable by the first estate of inheritance, and to make further provision for the better regulation of ecclesiastical duties." The resolution was adopted without comment from either side of the house; but when the bill founded on Lord Morpeth's resolutions was read a second time, June 9th, Mr. Sharman Crawford opposed it as wholly inadequate to the wants of the people of Ireland. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months; but on a division his motion was rejected by two hundred and twenty-nine against fourteen. The decision on the clause for taking livings was deferred, and nothing further was done on this question, the death of the king on the 20th of June precluding all further consideration of it.



QUESTION OF CHURCH-RATES.

Government had for some time been occupied in framing a scheme for the arrangement of the question of church-rates. On the 3rd of March the chancellor of the exchequer brought this subject before the house of commons, by moving that the house should resolve itself into a committee for its discussion. In his speech Mr. Rice first attempted to prove that the existing system could not be maintained. He remarked:—"By the law as it stood at present any vestry has the power of refusing its assent to a church-rate. Can it then be said there is, in fact, any fixed or satisfactory mode of providing for the maintenance of the churches of the establishment? Not only have they the power of refusing their assent, but this power has been frequently exercised. In consequence of the contests that took place in Sheffield on the subject, up to the year 1818, no rate has existed there since. In Manchester, in 1833, a poll took place on a rate, which was lost by a majority of one out of six or seven thousand votes. It is true the majority was set aside on a scrutiny; but it has not been ventured to collect the rate. In 1834 and 1835 the same scenes took place; large majorities were polled against the rates; those majorities were, on a scrutiny, declared to be minorities; but the churchwardens did not dare to act on their decision, or levy the rate that had been assessed. Can, or ought," asked Mr. Bice, "this state of things to continue? If you depend upon the church-rate for the maintenance of the church, can you depend upon the present state of the law to enable you to enforce that payment? It is not sufficient to assert that the law must be strengthened; if you wish to maintain such a proposition, you must carry the house of commons with you. Can you do so? I confess I should like to see, not the person, but the party, however combined in force or numbers, who could come down to this house and ask of parliament to grant additional power for enforcing the payment of church-rates. They would soon find that they miscalculate the character both of the legislature and of the people whom it represents." Having thus stated his grievance, Mr. Bice considered the remedy. He expressed his decided objection to the voluntary system; when he could be satisfied that the army and navy could be supported, or the administration of justice provided for on the voluntary principle, then, and not till then, would he apply it to the church. He also objected to a distinctive tax on the members of the established church, to the raising of a fund from pew-rents, and to a graduated impost on the benefices of the clergy. He further objected to the proposition brought forward by Lord Althorp; namely, that a sum of L250,000 should be voted by parliament, for the purpose of maintaining the fabric of the church. His plan would be different from all these propositions. He proposed to take the whole property of the bishops, deans, and chapters out of the hands of those dignitaries, and to vest them in the hands of a commission, under whose improved system of management it was calculated that, after paying to their full present amount all existing incomes, a sum not less than L250,000 might be saved and applied to the purposes of church-rates. He proposed that there should be eleven commissioners; five of high ecclesiastical rank; three high officers of state; and three paid members of the board. He further proposed that in all cases where pew-rents had been received, or where they could be justly demanded from the rich, the proceeds should be collected, and placed, in the first instance, under the control of a parochial committee, who should be required in ordinary cases to apportion one-fifth of the whole space in the church to free seats for the poor; in the churches built under the church building act, one-third; the surplus to be handed over to the commissioners. The sums received by the commissioners were to be paid to the ecclesiastical commission, to be applied by them to their specific objects. All visitation fees, and fees on swearing in churchwardens, were to be abolished; by which regulation it was stated a saving of L180,000 a year would be effected. A short and desultory conversation took place; in the course of which the liberal members expressed themselves satisfied with the proposition, while those on the other side of the house intimated their distrust of the principles of the measure.

The friends of the church soon sounded an alarm upon this subject. Three days after Mr. Rice had made his statement, a meeting of fifteen bishops took place at Lambeth Palace; and they came to an unanimous resolution in disapprobation of the bill. The same evening the Archbishop of Canterbury, on presenting some petitions against the abolition of church-rates, expressed his feelings on the subject to the house of lords. The principle of the bill was so unkind to the church, he said, and so mischievous in its effects, that he would never give his assent to its becoming law. This protest raised the indignation of Lord Melbourne. He heard this expression of opinion on the part of the most reverend prelate with sorrow and concern, not less on account of the effect which it would have on the success of the measure, than with reference to the interests of the church itself. He would put it, he said, to the archbishop, whether there was not something of undue haste and precipitation in the course which he had adopted; and whether he was not put forward by those who had more guile and deeper designs than himself, in order that his expressed opinions might affect the decision of the question in another place? He thought it would have been more decent if the most reverend prelate had waited for the regular time for the discussion of the matter, and not have thus precipitately announced his intentions with respect to it. He learned with affliction that he should have the most reverend prelate and his brethren against him on this measure; but this would not alter his course: considering it as just in itself, advantageous to the church, and beneficial to the community, he should persevere in urging it upon parliament.

The house of commons went into committee upon the resolutions of Mr. Rice on the 13th March. The discussion was opened by Sir Robert Peel in opposition. Lord Howick contented himself with replying on one or two points in the financial criticisms of Sir Robert Peel. He was convinced, he said, that the property of the church in land and houses was much greater than was reported by the bishops and chapters, and was greatly improvable under a better management; and he enlarged upon the evils of the present system, and the absolute necessity of removing them for the sake of the church. A discussion followed which lasted several nights. On a division the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy-three against two hundred and fifty.

This was a small majority on a question which involved little more than than the taking of the plan into consideration; ministers, indeed, were evidently dissatisfied with the reception of their measure, for they did not seem inclined to urge it through the house. Nearly two months elapsed before the subject was renewed by them: a delay which was made a matter of reproach to the government by some of its supporters without doors, as implying an acknowledgment of failure on the part of the authors of the scheme. The second reading of the resolutions was moved on the 22nd of May. An amendment was moved by Mr. A. Johnstone to this effect: "That it is the opinion of this house that funds may be derived from an improved mode, of management of church lands, and that these funds should be applied to religious instruction within the established church, where the same may be found deficient, in proportion to the existing population." Messrs. Baines, Hardy, Borthwick, and Horace Twiss, all spoke against the measure. Sir Francis Burdett expressed his regret that he was compelled to act against his former associates in politics, but he could not support the measure. Mr. Shiel endeavoured to make the honourable baronet refute himself by quoting extracts from his former speeches on the same subject. He spoke, however, of the honourable baronet in terms of the highest respect, as "a venerable relic of a temple dedicated to freedom, though ill-omened birds now built their nests and found shelter in that once noble edifice." On the second night of the debate the bill was supported by Messrs. Brotherton and Charles Buller. Mr. Johnstone withdrew his amendment; and on a division the original resolution was carried by a majority of five only, the numbers being two hundred and eighty-seven against two hundred and eighty-two. This division was a death-blow to the bill: ministers did not even attempt to urge it further in the house of commons. They were still disposed, however, to follow up the inquiries which had been suggested, into the present method of holding and leasing the property belonging to the bishops and chapters. On the 13th of June, Lord John Russell moved a committee "to inquire into this subject, with a view to ascertain the probable amount of any increased value which might be obtained by an improved management, with a due consideration of the interests of the established church, and of the present leases of such property." This motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and nineteen against two hundred and thirty-six, although it was opposed both by the church party and by honourable members on the part of dissenters. Mr. Coulburn moved a resolution to be added to the original motion, pledging the house to a specific appropriation of any increased revenue derivable from church lands, to the extension of religious instruction by ministers of the establishment. This was lost, but it was only by a majority of two hundred and ninety-one against two hundred and sixty-five. On the other hand, an amendment moved by Mr. Harvey, for the abolition of church-rates altogether, was negatived by an overwhelming majority of four hundred and eighty-nine against fifty-eight. These divisions possessed some interest, as indicative of the different shades of opinion which prevailed in the house on matters relating to the established church.



THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

On the opening of the first session of this parliament, Sir Robert Peel had made the deficient means of pastoral superintendence in the church of Scotland, the matter of a recommendation from the crown to the parliament. His government did not exist long enough in power to carry these recommendations into effect, and their successors were supposed to be adverse to the subject. On being pressed, however, they consented to the appointment of a commission, which should make inquiry into the whole of it, and report the same to parliament. The first report of this commission was not made till February of the present year, and then government appeared to take no notice of it. Under these circumstances Sir William Rae moved, on the 5th of May, that the "report should be taken into immediate consideration, for the purpose of remedying the evils acknowledged to exist within the district to which it refers, by extending the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence furnished by the established church of Scotland, and rendering them available to all classes of the community." This motion embarrassed government. Lord John Russell said that the general assembly of the Scottish church was about to assemble within a few days, and no doubt it was desired that they should have the ministers' refusal to consent to this motion, to allege as a presumption of their indifference to the interests of the establishment. He objected to the motion, only on the ground that they had not yet sufficient information on the subject to enable them to deal with it satisfactorily. The motion was opposed by Messrs. Horsman and Oillon on more general grounds; and on a division the order of the day, which was moved by Lord John Russell, was carried by two hundred and seventeen against one hundred and seventy-six: Sir William Rae's resolutions, therefore, were negatived by a majority of forty-one.



NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.

Within the first week of this session, the notice-book of the house of commons presented the announcement of motions for various "organic changes" in our constitution. Mr. Grote gave notice of his annual proposition of vote by ballot; Sir William Molesworth announced his intention of moving a committee on peerage reform; Mr. Tennyson D'Eyncourt promised to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Septennial Act; Mr. Hume gave notice for the extension of the parliamentary suffrage to all householders; Mr. Duncombe, of another for the repeal of the rate-paying clauses in the reform bill; Mr. Ewart, one of an address to the crown for the appointment of a minister of education; Mr. Roebuck, of a bill for the establishment of a system of national education; and Mr. Clay, a motion for the repeal of the corn-laws.

The motion for the ballot took place on the 7th of March. Mr. Grote's speech on this occasion contained many specious arguments, and it appears to have had a great effect upon the house. His motion was seconded by Mr. Hodges, and supported by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Charles Buller. The chancellor of the exchequer opposed the motion. He had as much right as any man to complain of the effects of undue influence and intimidation at his election at Cambridge: but he doubted whether the ballot would prove a remedy for the evil. He thought the only way was to let in public opinion upon the acts and conduct of individuals abusing their power. On a division, the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and sixty-seven against one hundred and fifty-five.

Another motion, referring to the exercise or regulation of the parliamentary franchise, was that of Sir William Molesworth, for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the property qualification of members of parliament, which, after a brief discussion, was negatived. The other notice which Sir William had given for a committee on peerage reform was not followed up. The only motion relating to this subject was introduced by Mr. Charles Lushington, who, on the 16th February, moved for leave to bring in a bill for the expulsion of bishops from the house of peers, on the ground that the sitting of bishops in parliament was unfavourable in its operation to the general interests of the Christian religion in this country, and tended to alienate the affections of the people from the established church. This motion was decidedly opposed by Lord John Russell, as introducing a change into one of the most ancient portions of the British constitution. It was a motion not to amend, but to destroy a part of our institutions. And where would such changes stop? The conservative party seemed content to leave this question to be debated between the two parties of their opponents; but when Mr. Buller made some remarks on their silence, Sir Robert Peel declared that if any unpopularity attended resistance to the motion, he was willing to put in a distinct claim for his share. He feared he should not benefit Lord John Russell by his compliments; but he would say that he had never heard a speech delivered in a more manly tone than the noble lord's, or one that did more credit to his judgment and abilities. On a division, the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety-seven against ninety-two.

Another motion connected with the reform of the house of lords was brought forward on the 9th of May, by Mr. Thomas Duncombe. He moved by way of resolution, "That the practice of any deliberative assembly deciding by proxy upon the rejection or adoption of legislative enactments is so incompatible with every principle of justice and reason, that its continuance is daily becoming a source of serious and well-founded complaint among all classes of his majesty's subjects." This resolution went, therefore, to abolish the right of peers to vote by proxy. Mr. Duncombe observed, that after the house should have affirmed that resolution, he would move, "That a message be sent to the house of lords, requesting a conference, at which the foregoing resolution might be communicated. Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Peel met Mr. Duncombe's arguments on the subject, by endeavouring to show that if voting by proxy was absurd, the custom of pairing off in the commons, or of coming in to vote at the division without having heard a syllable of the debate, was open to the same objection." Sir Robert went so for as to parody Mr. Duncombe's resolution, by drawing up a similar one against the practice of pairing; and he concluded by recommending that they should take the mote out of their own eye before they made any attempt to extract the mote out of that of another. On a division, the motion was negatived by one hundred and twenty-nine against eighty-one.

Mr. Thomas Duncombe's motion on the subject of the rate-paying clauses of the reform bill was disposed of in a similar manner. He brought this forward on the 9th of March, by moving for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of those clauses. Mr. Duncombe made no prefatory observations; on which, the chancellor of the exchequer remarked, that on so grave a motion he thought it much better that argument should precede rather than follow the introduction of the bill. Mr. Duncombe then said, that it was his conviction that the clauses in question operated materially to diminish the number of voters throughout the country. It was promised that the reform act should add half a million to the amount of electors, whereas it did not give more than three hundred thousand. The great reason for this was the want of punctuality in the payment of rates and taxes, and the partiality shown by collectors. The chancellor of the exchequer replied, that the principle on which the clause was founded was one of the oldest in the constitution; namely, that no man should enjoy civil rights who did not discharge his civil obligations. If there was any unfairness in collectors it should be inquired into; they were not appointed by the crown. After a few words from Mr. Wakley in support of the motion, and from Mr. Pease, who opposed it, the motion was carried by forty-nine against thirty-eight. On the second reading of the bill, however, Lord John Russell moved its postponement for six months, which was carried by one hundred and sixty-six against seventy-three, so that Mr. Duncombe's success was but transient.

Mr. Tennyson D'Eyncourt brought forward his promised motion for the shortening of the legal duration of parliaments, on the 8th of May. The terms of his motion were confined to a repeal of the septennial act, without specifying any particular period to be substituted for the present one. The motion was supported by Mr. Hume, on the ground that seven years was too long a tenancy of a political trust. He thought three years a better term, and one with which, he believed, reformers in general would be content. Lord John Russell opposed the motion. In private affairs a man would no more be disposed to trust his interests to another, without taking account, for three 3^ears than for seven. The septennial act at the time of its passing had been considered essential for the security of the Hanoverian succession; but the preamble of that measure showed that it was not intended merely for a temporary purpose, it stated the object to be to diminish the heavy expenses of frequent elections, and to put an end to heats and animosities. It was observable, he said, that from the Revolution to the passing of the septennial act, the persons who had the chief weight and leading authority in the country were peers; since the passing of that act almost every person who has possessed a leading influence has sat in the house of commons. Mr. Roebuck desired a bill of this description, not because it would lesson, but because he thought it would increase the stability of the government, particularly if coupled with the provision that parliament should not sit for more or less than three years. The motion was rejected by a majority of ninety-one against eighty-seven.

On the 4th of April Mr. Ewart renewed the motion which he had made in the previous session, for leave to bring in a bill, providing that in cases of intestacy, or in the absence of any settlement to the contrary, landed property be equally divided among the children or nearest relatives of the deceased. He quoted Adam Smith, Gibbon, Bentham, &c, in favour of an equal partition of property, and insisted that the system of primogeniture tended only to foster all the harsh and selfish passions of the human heart. The attorney-general opposed the motion. Mr. Ewart's arguments, he said, if they went for anything, would bring us to the system of equal distribution prevailing in France, which he could not think a desirable consummation. The change proposed would create great confusion in our law. The motion was lost by a majority of fifty-four against thirty-three. Mr. Ewart had given notice of an address to the crown, on the appointment of a minister of education; but neither this motion nor those of Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, and Clay, noticed at the opening of this article, were brought forward this session.



OPERATION OF THE NEW POOR-LAWS.

From the last report of the commissioners of the poor-laws, which was made up to July, 1837, it appeared that up to that period, of 18,433 parishes or townships in England, 12,132 had been united under the provisions of the poor-law act. These parishes or townships contained a population of above ten millions and a half; while the number of those not yet included contained a population of two millions and a half. In Wales, of 1049 parishes, twenty-eight only remained not yet united. Those which were not yet brought under the new system chiefly consisted of extensive and populous parishes, administering relief to the poor under local acts; a few others united for rating and settlement; while others were included in the unions established under Gilbert's act. The report stated that the progress of the new poor-law had been made in the face of much resistance, and under the pressure of difficult circumstances. These obstacles, however, had not been so considerable as might have been supposed. The opponents of the law had acted on the principle of agitation; but they had failed to accomplish that which they desired. The report further gave a very favourable account of the practical operation of the law in the habits of the poor. It did appear, in truth, that the new system had so far operated as to induce the farmers to give permanent employment to a much greater extent than formerly. On the working of the new poor-laws, however, there were differences of opinion, differences which were illustrated during this session on an occasion of a motion made by Mr. Walter, to inquire into the operation of the act. On introducing this subject, he brought forward a great many cases of individual hardship under its operation. The terms of his motion were, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the poor-law amendment act, and to report their opinion on it to the house;" but he disclaimed any intention to repeal the bill. Mr. Fielden, the seconder of the motion, was more explicit. His object was, he said, to obtain the total defeat of the obnoxious measure; he had voted against it on every division at the time it was passing; he had attended meetings of the people preparatory to resistance of its introduction into the county of Lancashire; and he had openly declared that if it were attempted to establish its operation in his own peaceable valley of Todmorden, it would be met with opposition, of which he would be the leader. Lord John Russell, in reply, objected to the inquiry; and he moved, as an amendment, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the administration of the relief of the poor, under the orders and regulations issued by the commissioners appointed under the provisions of the poor-law amendment act." On the second night of the debate, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Robinson, and other members spoke against the measure; while Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and the chancellor of the exchequer defended it. The latter said, in conclusion, that the intention of government in proposing the amendment was not to exclude any one topic of inquiry which was not directly opposed to the principle of the bill; on which Mr. Walter consented to withdraw his motion, and the amendment was then carried and the committee appointed.

The committee began its inquiries immediately, and continued them almost daily. Such, however, were the minuteness of examination to which the witnesses were subjected, and the mass of conflicting evidence brought forward on both sides, that the progress of the inquiry was but slow. Mr. Harvey had been one of the members of this committee, but had retired from it, "because it was all a delusion in its consequences, if not in its intention." Before he retired, he adopted the course of printing the evidence before it was reported, in a paper called the True Sun, of which he was the proprietor and editor, by way of appealing to the judgment of the public against the prepossessions of his colleagues in the committee. This was made a question of breach of privilege, and as such brought before the house on the 21st of April, by Lord John Russell. The speaker had informed Mr. Harvey that it was a violation of the privileges of the house, and the chairman of the committee had given him due warning that unless he desisted from the practice he should be reported. Lord John Russell, in bringing the subject forward, pointed out the obvious injury to the public which would result from allowing such a discretion to every member of a committee. Mr. Harvey defended his conduct upon grounds peculiar to the object of the poor-law committee. He asked, "Who were the parties composing that committee? On the one hand, there was all the property of the country, in every variety and form, aggregated to support a measure peculiarly framed for its interest and protection. Who was the other party? All that was pitiable and miserable in the land, sunken alike by ignorance and destitution. How, again, were the respective causes of these parties conducted? On the one side was one of the most active and vigilant bodies of men, the poor-law commissioners and their assistants; but who was there on the other to advocate the rights of the unprotected and oppressed millions? How was the working man, chained as he was to the soil upon which he dragged out a miserable being, to become acquainted with what took place except through the newspapers? Such publicity was the more necessary, when it was recollected that the advocates of the law in the committee were as a majority of twenty-two to four." Mr. Harvey's reasoning would have been sound if the committee had been compelled to make a daily report—a course which they subsequently adopted of themselves; but there could be no doubt that it rested only with the committee or the house to determine that point. Lord John Russell's motion was simply declaratory of the privileges of the house in this matter which was carried without a division.



AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Commissioners had been appointed to inquire into the ground of the complaints which for some years had been alleged by the prevailing party in the legislature of Canada, and by their friends and agents in the British parliament. Early in this session the report of these commissioners was laid before both houses, and on the 6th of March the subject was brought before the commons by Lord John Russell. His lordship declared at the outset that lie did not intend to cast any censure upon the conduct of the house of assembly in Lower Canada. He considered their course to be so much the same with that which other popular assemblies had followed in similar circumstances, that instead of an act of self-will, or caprice, or presumption, it seemed to be rather the obligation of a general law which affects all these disputes between a popular assembly on the one hand, and the executive government on the other. The course of these controversies, he said, seemed to impress this general lesson—that popular assemblies are hardly ever wrong in the beginning, and as seldom right in the conclusion of such struggles. They began with the assertion of right, and ended with the establishment of wrong. His lordship proceeded to state what were the demands of the leading party in the house of assembly. The first was, that the legislative council, which had hitherto been appointed by the crown, should for the future be an elective assembly. The second was, that the executive council should be responsible in the same way that the cabinet was in this country. By a third, it was exacted that the law of tenures should be changed, without respect to the rights obtained under a British act of parliament. Fourthly, it was demanded that the land company should be abolished, with a similar disregard of the rights required under the same act. Having stated the difficulties of the case, Lord John Russell proceeded to propose his remedies. It was now four years and a half, he said, since the judges had received their salaries, and it was high time for parliament to interfere on their behalf. He proposed to apply a certain portion of the revenue of Canada to such payments as in their rejected supply bill of 1833 the assembly had under certain conditions agreed to. The total amount of these would be L148,000, and in so applying them they would simply be applying the revenue of the colony for its own benefit. His lordship next proposed to adopt the recommendation of the commissioners which had been sent out in 1855, and exclude the judges from the legislative council; and to provide that in future the members of that body should not be chosen so exclusively from persons of the English race, but that alternately one of French and one of British extraction should be selected. With respect to the executive council, it was proposed that there should not be more than two or three official persons among its members, and that the rest should be selected by the legislative council, and from the house of assembly. The privileges of the North American Loan Company were to be preserved inviolate; a provision might easily be framed to prevent any abuse of them. As the complaints made against the Canada tenures act were in some degree well founded, it was proposed to repeal that act, care being taken that the lights of individuals vested under it should be respected. Complaints had been likewise made of the commercial relations between Upper and Lower Canada: the upper province, by the act of 1791, was allowed no communication with the sea, except on the payment of heavy duties; while the lower province put various impediments in the way of its commercial progress. It was proposed that, with the assent of the legislatures of the two provinces, a joint committee should sit at Montreal, composed of four members of the legislative council and eight of the representative assemblies of each, making twenty-four persons in all, who should have power to prepare laws and regulations upon all matters of reciprocal intercourse. These propositions were embodied in a series of ten resolutions, of the first of which, relating to the payment of the judges, &c, Lord John Russell then moved the adoption. These resolutions met with violent opposition on the part of the Radical section of the house of commons. Mr. Leader called the measure a coercion bill, and reminded the noble mover of the rule of unlimited concession in government whicli his lordship had a few nights before quoted from Mr. Fox, and desired him to apply it not merely to Ireland, but to Canada. He moved as an amendment on the fourth resolution, "That it is advisable to make the legislative council of Lower Canada an elective council." Mr. Robinson said that the whole of Mr. Leader's argument was founded on the modest assumption that the government, and commissioners, and legislative council had been wrong, and Mr. Papineau and the house of assembly as uniformly right in everything that had been done. Mr. O'Connell warmly advocated the cause of the Papineau party, whose sole object was, separation from this country. He called for "justice to Canada." He remarked:—"Give them a legislative council elected by themselves; place them in possession of all the rights and privileges which as British subjects they could reasonably demand; and then if they persevered in their opposition to the home government, it would be time enough to think of adopting some such measures as were now proposed." The Canadas, he urged, ought not to be governed with reference merely to British interests: Great Britain did not want Canadian revenues. Sir William Molesworth, Colonel Thompson, and Mr. Roebuck followed on the same side of the question. The speech of the latter was more violent than any of his party. Like all the orators on his side of the house, he dwelt much on the example of the American revolution, and on the sympathy and assistance the United States would give to the Canadians if they should resist. He asked, "What is the evil, and what is the remedy? You say, Great merit exists among the public servants. But do you propose to prevent the recurrence of that difficulty? Not at all. You pay the arrears. But who will pay the servants next year? Do you believe that the house of assembly will do so? You know as well as I do that the supplies will again be stopped; the same outcries will be raised, and then, I suppose we shall have another special commission, another delay of three years, another evasion of the difficulty, another breach of faith. Distrust will continue; exasperation will increase; their powers of resistance will increase also; one effort will be made, and you and your shuffling policy, your degraded government, your unworthy peculating and mischievous officials, will be dismissed with ignominy and hatred. I hear eternal talk of the evil consequences of stopping the supplies to those official servants, and hear nothing in reproof of the legislative council, who shut up last year all the primary schools in the country, and left 60,000 children without instruction. All your regards are turned the wrong way. You sought to make out a case of hardship to the servants of the people, but turned a deaf ear to the complaints of the people themselves. But I would ask his majesty's ministers, Have they well weighed the policy of this measure, and do they know its inevitable result? If not, I will tell them. The direct effect on the minds of the Canadian population will be a determination as soon as possible to get rid of a dominion which entails on them results so mischievous and degrading. Every year will hereafter strengthen the feeling, and lasting enmity and discord will thus be entailed on the mother country and the colony—discord that will cease only when the colony shall become a great, powerful, and independent community. The immediate effects of this feeling will not be seen in open and violent revolt, but in a silent though effective warfare against your trade. Non-intercourse will become the religion of the people: they will refuse your manufactures, and they will smuggle from the States. The long line of frontier will render all your attempts to prevent this smuggling unavailing. The people will refuse your West India produce, and they will view with hatred your schools of unprotected emigrants. Impatiently will they wait for the moment in which they shall obtain their freedom, and become part of that happy, and, for our interests, already too powerful republic. A war will be waged through an unrestricted press upon your government and your people. In America you will be held up as the oppressors of mankind, and millions will daily pray for your signal and immediate defeat. The fatal moment will at length arrive; the standard of independence will be raised; thousands of Americans will cross the frontier, and the history of Texas will tell the tale of the Canadian revolt."

In reply to Mr. Roebuck's declamation, Sir G. Grey, the colonial under-secretary, appealed to all the papers on the table, to all the instructions which had been sent out to the local government, and to every act which had been done in pursuance of these institutions, and he asked if anything had been done of which a free and independent people had the slightest right to complain? Every grievance which had arisen out of former misgovernment had been redressed: and now the house of assembly took their stand on another ground, and declared that if the constitution were not altered they would stop the supplies. The cry was raised by the house of assembly in Lower Canada alone; the people of Upper Canada disclaimed any share in it. The debate was adjourned to another day, when it was opened by Mr. Hume, who, in a speech of three hours' duration, impugned the whole conduct and policy of the government towards Canada. Finally, the three first resolutions being simply declaratory, were agreed to without division. The fourth, also, was carried on a division by a majority of three hundred and eighteen against fifty-six. This resolution was to the effect, "That in the existing state of Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to make the legislative council of that province an elective body; but that it is expedient that measures be adopted for securing to that branch of the legislature a greater degree of public confidence."