Chapter XXXIV: Part 34

Of the great questions of the day there still remained the all-important one, the condition of the labouring classes, but it was to another Prime Minister and to a modified Cabinet that the honour of the introduction of the new Poor Law was to belong. In spite of their large majorities, no single measure of the Government had been passed without important modifications, no scheme had been introduced that did not bear upon it the marks of compromise, and afford a distinct proof of the inherent weakness of a Cabinet divided against itself. The speech from the throne in the opening of the year 1834 did not give any hope of a firmer and more united Government. The Duke of Wellington was not wrong in complaining that there was no definite promise of a single Government Bill, that the foreign policy of the Cabinet had not produced European peace, that in spite of its majorities the Church policy of the Government had failed, and that it had carefully avoided, even while vaunting the success which had attended it, to state whether it intended the Coercion Bill to be renewed in Ireland or not. Nor was it doubted that he was uttering the opinions of some at least of the Cabinet itself when he warned the Lords against the tendency visible in several of the late proceedings of the Government towards tampering with property and the introduction of the beginnings of the policy of confiscation.

[Sidenote: Rejection of repeal, a Government victory.]

[Sidenote: Ministerial difficulty on Mr. Ward's motion on the Irish Church.]

[Sidenote: Resignation of the most conservative ministers.]

In the Lower House both the strength and weakness of the Government were shortly to be displayed. O'Connell, who had talked so long about the repeal of the Union, and had thus kept up the agitation which was so lucrative to himself, was compelled at length to make good his promises and to introduce a substantive motion for repeal. A lengthened debate followed, but terminated in a most complete victory for the Government; the division showing a majority of 485 in favour of an amendment exactly contradicting O'Connell's motion. The central position occupied by the Government enabled it, when it occasionally joined heartily with one side or the other, still to command the House of Commons, but when questions arose of a more doubtful sort its weakness became visible. Measures for the relief of Ireland had been promised, and Mr. Ward, a private member, determined to bring these promises to a test, by introducing a motion (May 27) with regard to the difficult question of the Irish Church, which the ministers would gladly have left quiet. Mr. Ward's resolution stated that the Protestant Episcopal Establishment of Ireland much exceeded the spiritual wants of the Protestant population, that it was the right of the State and of Parliament to distribute Church property, and that the temporal possessions of the Irish Church ought to be reduced. This motion put the Government into the greatest perplexity; to uphold the direct negative was to resign its pretensions to be the party of progress; to accept it was to shock some of its most important members. The ministers determined to adopt a middle course, and appoint a commission of inquiry. They hoped thereby to induce Mr. Ward to withdraw his motion, because the question was already in Government hands, but they seemed at the same time to pledge themselves to act in accordance with the recommendations of the commission. Armed with this compromise, Lord Althorp went to the House to meet Mr. Ward's motion. But the seconder, Mr. Grote, had advanced but a short way in the speech when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose and said, that since the beginning of the debate information had been brought to him which induced him to beg for a postponement. His personal influence was so great that the House at once granted his request. The news he had received was the resignation of Mr. Stanley, the Colonial minister, and of Sir James Graham, First Lord of the Admiralty, who regarded any interference with Church property with great abhorrence. They were followed by the Duke of Richmond, Postmaster-General, and by Lord Ripon, Privy Seal. The more conservative members of the Cabinet had thus openly retired from it. It might have been expected that Lord Durham, who had previously left it upon opposite grounds, would have now returned to office, and the Government have assumed a more distinctly radical character. He was, however, personally obnoxious to such members of the party of Canning as still remained in office, and his influence was dreaded by Lord Grey, who, though he continued as yet to hold the Premiership in accordance with the generally expressed desire of the Liberal party, sympathized at heart more with the Tories than with the Radicals. He expressed his feelings in his answer to an address which Lord Ebrington got up intreating him to retain his place. "In pursuing," he said, "a course of salutary improvement I feel it indispensable that we shall be allowed to proceed with deliberation and caution; and, above all, that we should not be urged by a constant and active pressure from without to the adoption of any measures the necessity of which has not been fully proved, and which are not strictly regulated by a careful attention to the settled institutions of the country both in Church and State. On no other principle can this or any other administration be conducted with advantage or safety." No difficulty was found in filling the vacant places; Mr. Spring Rice, who had distinguished himself in the debate on the Union, became Secretary for the Colonies, and Lord Auckland succeeded Sir James Graham.

[Sidenote: Difficulties of Grey's position.]

Under Lord Grey's leadership the Government was enabled to continue its course, because it was recognized at the time as the only possible Government; the Conservative feeling in England was far too strong to allow the success of a Radical Government with Durham at its head. On the other hand, on the great questions of the day it was impossible to go back. Sir Robert Peel clearly understood this position of affairs. He saw that a Tory Government would have no hope of permanence if it rested only on the support of the extreme members of the party. If the party was ever to be reconstituted it must loyally accept the changes which had been made, admit within its limits the more conservative-minded of the reformers, and take its stand on the great Conservative instincts of the nation--the love of the State Church, and the dread of any attack upon property. For the formation of a Liberal Conservative Government the time had not yet arrived, and the present Government of compromise was therefore allowed to continue. But the difficulties of the Premier, from the divergence of his opinions from those of his colleagues, soon became overwhelming. It was necessary to determine whether the Coercion Bill should be renewed or not. But it was possible to renew it in a softened form, and to omit the most objectionable parts--the suppression of the right of petition and the establishment of military courts. Such a course seemed advisable to Mr. Littleton, the Chief Secretary, and recommended itself also to the more liberal members of the Government, Lord Brougham and Lord Althorp. The mischievous activity of Lord Brougham led him to suggest to the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Wellesley, who had succeeded Anglesey, the advisability of officially informing the Government that he could do without these stringent clauses. Wellesley had already expressed himself privately to the contrary effect, but was overpersuaded, and followed the advice of Littleton and Brougham in his official despatches. These contradictory opinions from the chief of the Government were naturally very embarrassing to Lord Grey. To make matters worse, Littleton had attempted a personal reconciliation with O'Connell. Lord Althorp had known and approved of this step, but had warned Littleton against making any pledges. The Secretary unluckily allowed himself to be drawn into an admission that neither himself nor the Lord Lieutenant nor Lord Althorp approved of the renewal of the obnoxious clauses. To complete his blunder, he did not inform Lord Althorp what he had done, and trusted to a promise of secresy on the part of O'Connell, the most untrustworthy of men. So strong was Lord Althorp's opinion on the subject, backed as he believed it to be by that of Wellesley and of Littleton, that after being outvoted in the Cabinet, he in fact tendered his resignation, but was overruled by Lord Grey.

[Sidenote: Resignation of Grey's ministry. July 1834.]

On the 1st of July the Premier introduced the Bill in its full form, asserting, as from Wellesley's private letters to him he had a right to assert, that it was considered necessary by the Irish Government. On this, O'Connell, forgetful of his promise, disclosed in the Lower House his conversation with Littleton, which was in fact a direct contradiction of Lord Grey's assertion, at the same time implicating Lord Althorp in the deception played upon him. The Government seemed convicted not only of internal division, but of duplicity. Lord Grey reiterated his assertion in the Upper House with regard to the feelings of the Irish Government as expressed to him, while Lord Althorp admitted that he disliked the clause, and that Mr. Littleton was justified in telling O'Connell that the question was unsettled at the time of their conversation. The divergence of opinion in the Cabinet was thus fully brought out, and Lord Althorp was made to appear as guilty at once of having held out false hopes to O'Connell, and of having waived his own opinions for the sake of retaining office. Nothing could have been more alien to his nature than this charge, especially as, far from having really pledged himself to O'Connell, he had particularly warned Littleton against committing himself. But there seemed no way of escape without rendering still more glaring the weakness of the administration. On this ground, Littleton's offer to resign, which he felt in honour bound to make, was rejected; but, when in their eagerness to embarrass Government the Opposition moved for the production of the private letters of the Cabinet, Lord Althorp, in disgust at his equivocal position and at the attempted introduction into Parliament of matters which he held to be wholly beyond its jurisdiction, determined to resign. Lord Grey, by no means wedded to office, and feeling that Althorp's personal influence was the main security of the Government, at once declared the administration at an end. The King had already shown, when giving an answer to an address from the Bishops, a strong feeling against any attack upon the property of the Church. This known division between the sovereign and his advisers, and the evident weakness of the Cabinet itself, rendered the resignation of the ministry less surprising than it otherwise would have been.

[Sidenote: Lord Melbourne's ministry. July 16.]

Seeing the impossibility of forming a distinctly Tory ministry, the King was persuaded by Lord Brougham to send for Lord Melbourne, whom he instructed to give effect as far as possible to his previously expressed wishes, and to form a combined ministry, admitting to office some Tories and some of those who had left office on Conservative grounds. The attempt was fruitless. Peel did not yet see his desired opportunity, and foreseeing the gradual reaction which must arise from the unsatisfactory character of the Whig administration, determined to await his time. The King was therefore compelled to consent to the reconstruction under Melbourne of the old ministry. There was very little change in the construction of the Cabinet. Lord Melbourne's own place in the Home Department was filled by Lord Duncannon (Ponsonby), Sir John Cam Hobhouse obtained a seat in the Cabinet as First Commissioner of the Woods and Forests, and Lord Carlisle surrendered the Privy Seal to Lord Mulgrave.

[Sidenote: Church policy of Melbourne's ministry.]

The change, such as it was, did not add to the strength of the ministry. The introduction of the Coercion Bill on the 18th of July, without the stringent clauses, seemed a confession that some of the ministers at all events were acting contrary to conviction, or that they had weakly yielded to Irish clamour. The Bill was however passed with a strong protest in the Lords. An attempt on the 29th of July again to settle the tithe question displayed still further the inefficiency of the ministry; they allowed themselves to be beaten in the Lower House upon an amendment of O'Connell, who, instead of the proposed land tax, suggested the immediate payment of the tithes, diminished forty per cent., by the landlord. In spite of their defeat, which so completely changed their Bill that out of 172 clauses 111 had to be removed, they proceeded with it, but suffered a heavy defeat on the second reading in the Lords. Their Church policy was indeed throughout entirely ineffective. The feeling that the Church was in danger had begun to take hold not only of the Lords, who systematically resisted innovation, but of the people in England. The efforts of the Dissenters, excited to demand religious equality by the success of Irish agitation, were fruitless. Their petitions were indeed of a character to cause some fear. They begged for the separation of Church and State, for the exclusion of Bishops from Parliament, for the admission of Dissenters to all the privileges of the universities. On this last point a Bill was introduced. Largely signed petitions were sent in against it by the universities. All the leaders of the Conservative, or partially Conservative party, combined to oppose it, and though it passed the Lower House it was rejected in the Lords (Aug. 1). In the same way the efforts of Government to relieve Dissenters from the Church rates, and from the restrictions laid upon the right of dissenting ministers to celebrate marriage, being all conceived from a Church point of view, and assuming the form of concessions rather than the granting of rights, were distasteful to the Dissenters themselves, and came to nothing. The plan for the commutation of the English tithes met with the same fate. It was indeed a period of general ecclesiastical excitement; the introduction of the appropriation clause in the Irish Tithe Bill had closely touched the feelings of English Churchmen; the nature of the Church as distinct from an institution founded by and connected with the State began to be examined. A party in Oxford undertook to enlighten the nation upon the character of the Church in a series of tracts, which gained for the authors the title of Tractarians. In these they urged with great force all the tenets of what is now known as the High Church party--the doctrine of apolostic succession, the sole efficiency of the sacraments, the sacred nature of the priesthood, and the insufficiency of the Bible as apart from the explanations of Church tradition. Their principles rapidly spread. At the same time the Evangelical party lost several of its chief leaders and began to decline. And though three parties could still be traced, public opinion began to divide itself chiefly between the two great views of those who regarded the Church as an institution independent in itself, and beyond the reach of secular interference, and those Liberals who, attached as they might be to the Church as a political institution, regarded it as lying within the sphere of politics.

[Sidenote: Reform of the Poor Law. Aug. 1834.]

But if their liberal Church policy was doomed to failure, the ministry was able to do one great work by the reform of the Poor Law. The chief effects of the old Poor Law have been already mentioned. Its lax administration, the power of relief in the houses of the paupers, the system of allowances in aid of wages, and the distribution of relief in proportion to the number of children, had pauperized the agricultural poor, had withdrawn the chief restraints on early and imprudent marriages, had fostered immorality, and increased the amount of the poor rate till it seemed as though England would sink beneath the burden. It had become necessary to adopt some sounder principles, even although they had the appearance of harshness. Nor was the Government without experience by which to guide its action. Already in about a hundred parishes an improved administration had been tried, and in every instance it had succeeded; while, on the other hand, in certain parishes where the old system remained in vigour cultivation had been actually abandoned, and the neighbouring parishes having to support their poor, there was every risk of the plague spreading throughout England. The chief error in the old system was the complete confusion which existed between poverty and pauperism, between the industrious poor man and the self-pauperized idler. It was this point on which a commission issued in 1832 chiefly insisted. The Bill based on their report was in fact little more than a recurrence to the true principles enunciated in the first general Poor Law of the reign of Elizabeth. To separate these two classes it was necessary that outdoor relief should be discontinued and the allowance system put an end to. Those only who were really in want were to receive relief, but upon conditions which should render it certain that the want was real. In the workhouse every able-bodied man must work; it was not fair that the industrious should be called upon to support an increasing race of paupers raised in the workhouse, husbands and wives must therefore be separated; for the sake of training and education, children must be kept from the possible contamination of the adult paupers; and as the maintenance of industry was one of the chief objects of the reform, free circulation of labour and the removal of most of the restrictions of the old law of settlement were indispensable. The system no doubt had a very harsh appearance, but its principles could scarcely be questioned. But these principles were in fact nothing new; all the evils to be rectified had arisen from the bad way in which such principles had been carried out. The machinery then by which relief was to be administered was of almost more importance than the principles on which it was to be granted. For economy, parishes were formed into unions, with one workhouse instead of several. The method of collecting the rates was left unchanged, the distribution was still left to guardians and select vestries; but this local management was placed under a central board, consisting of three commissioners, with assistants, at first twenty-one, diminished subsequently to nine. There was one other point which bore an appearance of extreme harshness, was much objected to at the time, and was subsequently changed; this was an attempt to check immorality by throwing the charge of the maintenance of illegitimate children upon the mother. This appeared completely to shield the guilty father, and to punish only the weak and misguided mother, but in fact, as many wise people saw at the time, it roused a feeling of self-dependence and respect among women, and produced the very best effects; the decrease of illegitimate births was extraordinary. The decrease in England was nearly 10,000, or thirteen per cent. in two years. In one point only did it appear that party interests could interfere with the passage of the Bill. It almost necessarily implied the subsequent repeal of the Corn Laws. Freedom of labour, the abolition of the Act of Settlement, rendered such a change indispensable; but this the ministry, very anxious to avoid the appearance of touching laws which were very dear to the hearts of the agricultural interest, still refused to believe, and denied in the most absolute terms. Nevertheless, between the second reading on the 9th of May and the third reading of the Bill on the 1st of July, a very powerful opposition had been aroused. It was spoken of as a Bill cruel against the poor. From a radical point of view the centralization of the system was decried. The commissioners were spoken of as three-tailed Bashaws. It was however carried by 157 to 50 votes. This was on the 2nd of July, when Lord Grey was still in office. Under the new ministry the management of the Bill in the Upper House passed into the hands of Lord Brougham; he supported it in one of his ablest speeches, and it was carried on the second reading by a very considerable majority, and became law on the 14th of August. Although some subsequent amendments were necessary, it has on the whole proved highly successful. The poor rate, which at the end of the American War, when the population of England was about 8,000,000, amounted to £2,132,487, which during the subsequent forty years of mismanagement had risen till in 1833, when the population was 14,000,000, it had reached £8,606,501, was in the course of three years reduced by upwards of £3,000,000.

[Sidenote: Discontent and misery of the poor.]

But though its character was so free from taint of party, though its action was on the whole so beneficial, the new Poor Law was used, and used with effect, to excite the deep-felt discontent which was prevalent in the lower classes, and which continued to increase and to acquire form and organization during the next four years, till it assumed the definite form of Chartism, and produced the very dangerous outbreak in the year 1839. It was scarcely possible but that such discontent should exist; the hopes of the poor man, raised to an exaggerated height by the excitement of the Reform Bill, had been cruelly disappointed. While no doubt some good and useful measures of reform had been carried, it was impossible to deny that the reform ministry had on the whole proved itself unwilling and unable to handle the great social questions of the time, that disputes in Parliament had fallen back into their old grooves, and had assumed the form of party contests rather than of efforts for the improvement of the great mass of the people. Hitherto trade had been fairly prosperous, but in 1835 symptoms were evident that this prosperity was disappearing; and when want was added to the justly-felt disappointment of the workmen, when agitators were exciting them with dismal stories of the cruelty of the Poor Law, of the tyranny of the manufacturing masters, and when every good and popular measure seemed to be first stripped of half its value by the ministry which introduced it, and then totally rejected by an obstructive House of Lords, it is not to be wondered at that the unrepresented masses believed that they had been used merely as an instrument, and that if increased representation was so good for their betters, it would prove the cure for them also, and began to clamour for a wide extension of the franchise, and more efficient security that the particular wants of their class should receive attention.

[Sidenote: Increase of trades unions.]

Many signs of the growing discontent were visible. The most formidable in the course of the year 1834 was the great extension and changed character of the trades unions. For some time trade societies had existed, and from time to time individual trades had combined to strike for advance of wages or other trade purposes, but in this year a combination of many trades began to make itself seen, which by mutual support should enable those on strike to hold out against their masters, and though the system broke down through the natural inefficiency of an uneducated body for such a combination, the danger became great when it was extended to the agricultural poor. To repress this symptom, so threatening to the landowners and farmers, six labourers were indicted at Dorchester under an obsolete statute against the administering of oaths. Amidst much popular sympathy, they were sentenced to seven years' transportation. The whole body of unionists, in their indignation, summoned a general meeting in Copenhagen Fields on the 21st of April. Besides a general intention to overawe the ministry, there seems to have been among a knot of their leaders a distinct plan of somehow or other securing the Government by violent means. It was intended that the deputation of the trades should lay hands upon Lord Melbourne, who was then minister for home affairs, and proceed to further acts of violence. Warned in time, Melbourne kept himself out of sight, and sent his under secretary to receive the deputation, while silently troops were held in readiness, the public offices defended with artillery, and 5000 householders sworn in as special constables. The under secretary declared that a petition accompanied by 60,000 men could not be received, and seeing the preparations made for their reception, the crowd withdrew in quiet, and the day passed over safely, but the incident shows both the power and temper of the unionists. Even more formidable was the general feeling against the House of Lords which exhibited itself at the close of the next year. By that time the House had shown itself still more obstinate, and facts had been brought to light which rendered it particularly odious to the people.

[Sidenote: Dispute between Durham and Brougham.]

[Sidenote: Dismissal of the Melbourne ministry. Nov. 1834.]

In the autumn of 1834 the possession of office by the Whigs was regarded as secure, and while O'Connell returned to continue the agitation in Ireland, the ministers withdrew as usual to refresh themselves after the labours of the session. Among others, Lord Brougham travelled in Scotland, everywhere bringing both himself and the ministry into ridicule by his inconsistent and egotistical speeches. On the 15th of September the late Prime Minister attended a banquet held in his honour at Edinburgh, where he met Lord Durham, his son-in-law, Lord Brougham, and several of the other ministers. In returning thanks for the health of the ministry, the Chancellor appeared to rebuke the reformers for their impatience and for endangering all progress by their haste. These words by no means suited the views of Lord Durham, one of the chief authors of the Reform Bill, and a man of very popular tendencies. He replied that he entirely disagreed with his noble and learned friend, and frankly confessed that he was one of those persons who saw with regret every hour that passed over the existence of recognized and unreformed abuses. Brougham took this rebuke in the highest dudgeon, and in a very few days, at Salisbury, he replied severely upon Lord Durham, and uttered a sort of challenge to him to meet him in the House of Lords, and shortly after in the _Edinburgh Review_ charged him with revealing the secrets of the Cabinet. Lord Durham's words at Edinburgh were eagerly accepted as proofs of a more frank acceptance of the principles of reform than they had hitherto met with from Government, and all minds were eagerly set upon the approaching duel in the House. But the King, who, as has been already mentioned, much disliked the Church policy of the Whigs, dreaded what must have given rise to a new assertion of the duty of rapid reform. He was eager to prevent the meeting in the House, and circumstances favoured him. Before the session Lord Spencer died, and Lord Althorp, his son, was thus removed to the Upper House. There was no reason why this should have broken up the ministry, but the King seized his opportunity, sent for Lord Melbourne, asserted that the ministry rested chiefly on the personal influence of Lord Althorp in the Commons, declared that, deprived of it as it now was, the Government could not go on, and dismissed his ministers, instructing Melbourne at once to send for the Duke of Wellington.

[Sidenote: The Peel-Wellington ministry.]

Ever since the passing of the Reform Bill the conduct of Sir Robert Peel had been extremely judicious. In his hands the Tory party had been entirely remodelled; there were indeed remnants of it unchanged, especially in the House of Lords, but gradually most of the party had separated themselves from this remnant, and had taken the name of Conservatives, declaring themselves as willing as the Whigs to foster reforms, although only in a Conservative manner. It was in vain that the old Tories had sought to keep the Duke of Wellington with them; he had wisdom enough to see that the hope of the party lay with Peel, and to keep up the closest connection with him. His first step therefore, when summoned by the King, was to send to Peel, who, believing that the time for a Conservative ministry had not yet arrived, had gone abroad, and was now in Rome. While waiting for his arrival, the Duke took upon himself the discharge of no less than five offices, conduct which, though in fact perfectly wise and reasonable, was foolishly complained of at the time as unconstitutional. Peel, although he was as yet by no means anxious for office, could not but obey the summons, and hurried home with extreme rapidity. He had hoped to obtain the support of Sir James Graham and Mr. Stanley, the late deserters from the Whig ministry, and it was a grave disappointment when they refused to act with him. Thus prevented from forming the moderate Conservative ministry he intended, Peel was reduced to fill his places with men of more pronounced opinions, which promised ill for any advance in reform. He himself became Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Lord of the Treasury. The Foreign, Home, War, and Colonial Offices were filled respectively by Wellington, Goulburn, Herries, and Aberdeen. Lord Lyndhurst became Lord Chancellor, Hardinge Irish Secretary, and Lord Wharncliffe Privy Seal.

[Sidenote: The Tamworth Manifesto. Jan. 1835.]

[Sidenote: New Parliament. Feb. 19, 1835.]

With this ministry Peel had to meet a hostile House of Commons, for the approach of the Conservatives to power had combined Whigs and Radicals in opposition. The Prime Minister therefore thought it necessary to dissolve Parliament, and took the opportunity of declaring his policy in what is known as the Tamworth Manifesto. He declared his acceptance of the Reform Bill as a final settlement of the question, and promised to carry out its intentions as far as they consisted in a wise and careful improvement of old institutions. As to the other questions then at issue he would support the inquiry into the state of corporations which the late ministry had set on foot, and wished, as his predecessors had done, to relieve Dissenters from the Church rates and from all restrictions on their marriages; but upon the Irish Church, and upon admission of Dissenters to the universities, his mind was unchanged. He continued to object to the appropriation of Church revenues to secular purposes and to granting degrees to Dissenters. As to whether any reform was required in the organization of the English Church, his mind, he said, was not yet made up. The tone of this Manifesto was very different from that of the old Tory party, and shows that the Reform Bill had really done its work, that the country had entered upon a new era, when the lines between parties would be less coarsely drawn, when obstinate obstruction to all reform would be impossible, and the points at issue confined chiefly to the time, manner, and degree, in which reforms should be carried out. But it is impossible in a country where party government has once taken root that unprejudiced discussion of measures should become prevalent. The general principles of the men by whom the measures are suggested are, and must be, invariably taken into consideration, and the one party will not fail to feel mistrust of the other even though the plans suggested are as good, or better, than their own, and the contest between the rival parties for the Government of the country will not cease. Thus, in spite of Peel's moderation, the whole body of the Liberals were determined to oppose the new Government to the utmost, and not to trust the administration in the hands of one who had always represented the Tories, and who still received the support even of the extreme members of that party. The elections, though they returned a House, as is generally the case, more favourable to the existing Government than that which had been dissolved, still gave a considerable majority to the Liberals.

[Sidenote: Overthrow of Peel's ministry. April 8, 1835.]

From the very first Peel held office upon suffrance; the only question was how to bring matters to a point, as the minister refused to accept as his dismissal anything but a direct vote of want of confidence. Meanwhile his temper and judgment daily increased the admiration which the public began to feel for him. He took up several of the late ministers' measures, and carried them through where they themselves had failed. A more complete liberty granted to the Dissenters with regard to their marriages won their approbation; and though he could not complete this measure, he was able on going out of office to leave it in the hands of Lord John Russell, by whom it was settled upon the principle that the State was only interested in the civil contract, while churches and sects were at liberty to add what religious ceremonies they liked. He introduced a measure for the voluntary commutation of tithes, which seemed to be successful, re-appointed all the committees of the preceding session for examining abuses, and continued with good effect the ecclesiastical commission for the organization of the arrangements of the Church. The common charge against him was that he was purloining the measures of his adversaries. However, although he had to stand constantly on the defensive, there appeared no sufficient grounds for a vote of want of confidence. At last, on the 30th of March, Lord John Russell brought the matter to a crisis by proposing as a sort of test question that the House should resolve itself into committee to consider the state of the Irish Church, with the intention of applying any surplus revenues which might be found to general education, without distinction of religion. In other words, he reintroduced the old appropriation clause. It is to be borne in mind that the Whigs themselves had abandoned that clause, that they had voted against it in the case of Mr. Ward's measure, and that they afterwards entirely rejected it. But for the time it served the party purpose. Although Peel declared, and declared rightly, that the feeling of England was against it, the votes of the Scotch and Irish members carried the day, and the ministry was beaten on the 3rd of April by a majority of thirty-three. On the 8th Sir Robert Peel announced his resignation.

The Whigs were thus again triumphant. The history of their weakness and their difficulties belong to a period of history which lies beyond the limits of this work. But one measure which they brought to a satisfactory conclusion requires mention as completing in one very important point the work of the Reform Bill. This was the reform of corporations. With this exception it would be impossible to describe the course of their measures without following them so far that they become a part rather of present politics than of past history. But this reform to which they at once pledged themselves was scarcely less important for the purification of local government than the Reform Bill itself had been with regard to the central Legislature.

[Sidenote: Condition of municipal corporations.]

On the extension of the franchise on the passing of the Reform Bill, attention had been drawn to the fact that in a great number of corporate towns many of the electors who had the right to join in choosing members for Parliament had no voice at all in the management of their own local affairs. It was clearly for the interest of the reform party to remove this abuse, and to secure still stronger support from the middle class of citizens among whom their strength already lay. In 1833 a commission of ten members had been issued to inquire into the condition of the corporations of England and Wales. Nominated during the first days of the popular triumph, and with a party object, it was natural that the commissioners should be drawn entirely from the ranks of the reformers. Their report was therefore open to the charge of onesidedness, but it brought a state of things to light which thoroughly justified the Government in introducing a great measure of reform. The constitution, originally popular, of the English boroughs had in lapse of time been completely altered. The rights of citizenship, originally belonging to all fully qualified freemen residing within the borough, had been gradually confined to a small class technically spoken of as the Freemen, many of whom were so decayed as not only to pay no rates, but in some cases to be themselves dependent on the poor rates. The government of the town and administration of the corporate property, and, before the Reform Bill, the election of parliamentary representatives, had in some instances fallen into the hands of an exclusive council, who had the right of filling up the vacancies in its own numbers. A variety of circumstances had contributed to these changes. Birth, marriage, apprenticeship, or membership of some guild, originally tests of residence, had after a time acted so as to exclude large numbers of residents from the ranks of the freemen. Wealth introduced a division of classes, and unchecked encroachment on the part of the wealthy had gone still further to exclude many from their rights. Political reasons had induced the Crown to seek the support of the boroughs in Parliament, and, especially in the time of the Tudors, new charters had been granted which placed the local government entirely in the hands of self-elected councils, much more easily handled for political purposes than widespread constituencies. The same process had been continued by the Stuarts. James II. even went further, and his attempt to nominate corporations of boroughs was not the least of the causes of the Revolution. Though the project failed, the close corporation system was continued both by Whigs and Tories, who found their political advantage in it. This perversion of municipal arrangements for political purposes had been attended with many practical abuses. In the first place, the corporations, which had in their hands the government of large and important towns, by no means represented the property, intelligence, or population of those towns. Thus in Ipswich, of 2000 ratepayers only 287 belonged to the corporation. At Cambridge, out of 20,000 inhabitants, only 118 were freemen, while of the property, which was valued at £25,000, only £2100 was the property of freemen. In Norwich, £25,500 was the value of the rated property, £18,200 of this belonged to those who were not freemen. Again, these self-elected governors constantly misappropriated the corporate funds, which, as the gross income of the corporations was £366,000, was a matter of considerable importance; the corporate offices were filled by favour, the charities employed for the purchase of votes, and large sums spent upon feasting and other useless shows, while the townsmen at large were rated for all local purposes. The distribution of these rates again was in the hands of the same people who exacted them, and no account of how they were employed could be obtained. To cure this general state of corruption was the intention of the new measure.

[Sidenote: The Municipal Reform Bill. Sept. 7, 1835.]

The measure included 178 boroughs. It began by marking out their boundaries, where possible in accordance with the boundaries of the electoral borough. The object of the Bill was not to centralize, but on the contrary to improve local administration; it was not therefore proposed to withdraw business from the hands of the corporation, with the exception of the administration of charities and church funds, which were respectively placed in the hands of trustees named by the Lord Chancellor and of the ecclesiastical commissioners. It was the nature of the corporation itself which was to be improved. In accordance with the principle of the Whig party, the new governing bodies were to be elected by constituencies of considerable breadth, but confined to the middle classes. A three years' residence and payment of the poor and borough rates was to be the qualification of an elector. By them the new governing body, called the town council, was chosen, which together with the constituency formed the corporation. To committees of the town council were intrusted the administration of the various branches of local government. To the whole body collectively was given the management of the borough funds, the proper expenditure of which was to be guaranteed by a publication of the accounts, properly audited by auditors not themselves town councillors. The Government reserved in its own hand the right of appointing justices of the peace and paid magistrates when required. Though the change was sweeping, and seemed somewhat to affect the rights of property, the abuses were so glaring that the Bill easily passed the Lower House. In the Lords several amendments were passed against the Government, especially one retaining their old privilege to existing freemen, but somewhat to the disappointment of the Tories, the Commons accepted the amendment, and the Bill was passed on the 7th of September.

[Sidenote: Foreign diplomacy of Palmerston.]

So absorbing had been the interest of domestic questions that foreign affairs had been somewhat disregarded. Yet from time to time they had come before the public attention, and were in themselves of considerable importance. They had fallen chiefly into the hands of Lord Palmerston, a disciple of Canning's, and therefore by principle an upholder of peace and of the doctrine of non-intervention, but inspired also as his master had been with an admiration and love for the institutions of constitutional monarchy, which led him into a line of conduct which it is difficult to harmonize with his professed principles. The most striking characteristic of our foreign policy in his hands was the close apparent union with France in opposition to the three Eastern powers, which Palmerston still regarded as tainted with the old principle of the Holy Alliance, and of one of which, namely Russia, he was sensitively mistrustful on all points connected with the policy of the East of Europe. The sympathy between England and France was inevitable. In some sense the kings of the two countries were both citizen kings, the great change which had taken place in England was the counterpart of the Revolution of July. In both countries it was the middle class which had just obtained the predominance. In both countries there was the same character of government, and both expressed the same desire for peace. At the same time the questions which agitated Western Europe were all more or less connected with the establishment of that form of government which both countries admired.

[Sidenote: Absorption of Poland. 1831.]

The influence of the Revolution of July had, as has been mentioned, spread far and wide over Europe, but had made itself most prominently felt in Belgium, which had broken loose from its enforced connection with Holland, and in Poland, which rose in insurrection to free itself from the rule of Russia. With Poland England had little to do. In the existing state of circumstances, though the sympathy of all classes was strongly with the Poles, armed interference was not to be thought of, and it was impossible to prevent the total subjugation of that gallant nation, after a very brave but ineffectual attempt to withstand the might of Russia. The fall of Warsaw sealed its fate; it was incorporated, contrary to all the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna, with the Russian empire.

[Sidenote: Formation of Belgium.]

But Belgium was nearer home. Its creation into a strong kingdom had been the pet scheme of English diplomatists; it was impossible to leave it to be overwhelmed by Holland, in conjunction with the Eastern powers, or to be absorbed by France. The difficult duty of the English minister was so to undo the work of his predecessors as if possible to prevent a war which would inevitably have arisen in either of the above cases, and so to preserve the independence of the Belgians that they might yet serve in some degree to fulfil the object of the negotiators of Vienna, as a check upon the power of France. To gain these ends he induced the five great powers to send representatives to a Congress in London. The first difficulty was to restrain the ambitious desires of France, where the propagandist and conquering spirit seemed for the moment to have been reawakened by the late revolution. The original plan of mediation was rejected by the King of the Netherlands, who, trusting to the assistance of Russia, invaded Belgium, and was only dislodged by the appearance of a French army. After a period of some anxiety, the firmness of Palmerston was successful in causing the withdrawal of the French troops, and the rejection of the crown by the King's son the Duc de Nemours. The immediate danger of war being thus averted, the London Conference drew up twenty-four articles (Nov 15, 1831), on which, though they were not thoroughly acceptable to either party, it was determined to insist. They specified the limits of the new kingdom more favourably for Holland than had been the case in the preceding and rejected scheme, and settled the division of the public debt. Upon the understanding that these arrangements were final, Prince Leopold, the husband of the late Princess Charlotte, accepted the throne, not however, as Palmerston was careful to explain, as the English candidate, but as a man generally acceptable to the powers. He shortly rendered his position more secure by marrying a daughter of the French King. But the difficulties did not end with his acceptance of the throne; the King of the Netherlands continued to refuse the proferred terms, till at length the two Western powers lost patience, and unable to procure the assistance of the other members of the Conference, took the matter into their own hands, laid an embargo on the Dutch ships, blockaded the mouth of the Scheldt, and laid siege to Antwerp with a French army. After a very gallant defence, Antwerp yielded, and though the final settlement between the countries was postponed till 1839, a provisional armistice was entered into which practically put an end to the difficulties.

[Sidenote: Affairs of Portugal.]

As important as Belgium were the affairs of Portugal and Spain. Don Miguel had pursued his career of cruelty and folly. Acts of unjustifiable violence committed on the subjects of France had compelled the French Government, in July 1831, to send a squadron to the Tagus to obtain satisfaction, a measure which threatened for an instant serious consequences, as the English Government still felt itself pledged to uphold Portugal, its old ally. Fortunately Miguel was too foolish to see his opportunity. Still worse behaviour towards some English subjects brought a British fleet to Portugal in the following spring also to demand satisfaction. It became certain that the two Western powers would act in union there as they had already done in Belgium. While continuing nominally a strict neutrality, all sorts of volunteer assistance was allowed to join Don Pedro, when in July 1832 he landed at Oporto, again to assert the claims of his young daughter. An Englishman commanded his fleet, a Frenchman his army, and his troops were largely composed of volunteers from both nations. On the other hand, the French Legitimists, with Marshal Bourmont at their head, crowded to assist Don Miguel. For a while Don Pedro's expedition met with poor success; he could barely make good his position in Oporto, but in the middle of the next year, Admiral Sartorius having given place to Napier, the tide of victory changed, Miguel's fleet was destroyed off St. Vincent, and before the end of June Lisbon was in the hands of the Queen's adherents. For some while longer the strife was continued; but the Whigs could boast that the question was practically settled, and constitutional government established, although the assertion they made that they had held a strict neutrality, and without helping either side had allowed them to fight the matter out, was scarcely consistent with truth.

[Sidenote: Affairs of Spain.]

The success of constitutional principles in Portugal was speedily followed by events which produced the same results in Spain. The law of succession in that country had been again and again changed; the liberal constitution of 1812 had excluded females; Ferdinand in 1830 had again admitted them to the succession, but, frightened by a dangerous illness, and under pressure from the priests, he subsequently withdrew this decree, thus leaving his brother Don Carlos, an extreme absolutist, heir to the throne. The return of health brought him under other influences. He had married a young Neapolitan Princess, Christina, by whom he had two daughters, and through her influence he was induced, in 1832, to re-establish the old law, settling the crown on his daughter Isabella. In September 1832 he died, and when Isabella was proclaimed Queen and Christina Regent, Carlos met with considerable sympathy, especially among the clergy, the peasantry and the old nobility, as they considered him tricked out of his inheritance by Christina's influence. But Christina had sense enough to throw herself heartily upon the side of the Liberal government, and rallied round her all the friends of constitutionalism in Spain and elsewhere. Thus there were in each of the neighbouring countries of the Peninsula a young Queen representing constitutional principles, opposed to an uncle with absolutist views claiming the throne. The Queen was successful in Spain; the Cortes was summoned under a Liberal minister, and Don Carlos was driven from the country. The similarity of their positions made the cause of the two Princes one, and Carlos betook himself to Don Miguel, who was still after his expulsion from Lisbon lying at Santarem. Lord Palmerston saw in this position of affairs an opportunity for carrying out his great object, of supporting constitutionalism and aiming a blow against the absolute powers of the East. He arranged, early in the year 1834, a Quadruple Alliance, primarily between Spain and Portugal, for the purpose of expelling the claimants to both countries from the Peninsula, a movement which was to be supported in case of necessity by a French army and an English fleet.

[Sidenote: The Quadruple Alliance. 1834.]

[Sidenote: Unavailing against Russian advance.]

[Sidenote: Treaty of Unkiar Skelesi.]

Thus, as in the affairs of Belgium, France and England had been successful in thwarting the Eastern powers and establishing a constitutional power, so now again they had induced Spain and Portugal to add their weight to the constitutional cause. "I reckon this to be a great stroke," said Palmerston; "in the first place it will settle Portugal, and go some way to settle Spain also, but what is of more permanent and essential importance, it establishes a quadruple alliance between the States of the West, which will serve as a powerful counterpoise to the Holy Alliance of the East." The treaty did in fact at once put an end to the opposition of Don Miguel. A Spanish army marched to attack him on the rear, and he surrendered, and promised to leave the Peninsula. In the affairs of Spain the treaty was not so effectual. Don Carlos escaped in an English ship, to return subsequently and carry on a civil war, which lasted till 1840. During that period the English, though still preserving external neutrality, allowed an English legion, under the command of Sir De Lacy Evans, to go to the assistance of the Queen, whose final triumph he materially assisted in gaining. The whole fruit of the Whig foreign policy, and of the friendship with France, which the similarity of feeling in the two countries had engendered, was to consolidate for the time the West of Europe upon constitutional principles, in well-defined opposition to the East. But this had not been done without the exertion of an amount of influence, and an indirect employment of physical force, which could scarcely be honestly veiled under the name of neutrality; nor had the joint influence of the two countries been sufficient to check the growth of Russia in the East. Mahomet Ali, the Pasha of Egypt, had formed the idea of creating an Arabian monarchy from portions of the Turkish Empire. His adopted son and heir, Ibrahim Pasha, overran the whole of Syria, and, in 1832, seemed on the highroad to Constantinople. In its extremity the Porte applied to Russia for assistance, and although the French Ambassador contrived a temporary arrangement with the Pasha which postponed for a time the interference of the Russians, the further advance of Ibrahim compelled a renewed demand for help, and finally, on July 8, 1833, most of the demands of Mahomet Ali were granted, and the Treaty of Unkiar Skelesi was signed with Russia, which opened the Bosphorus to the Russians, and closed the Dardanelles to the ships of war of other nations; the protests of England and France remained entirely unheeded.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Retrospect of affairs in India.]