Chapter XLV: {william IV. 1835—1836} (1)

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

STATE OF PARTIES.

{A.D. 1835}

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

GENERAL ELECTION.

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

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

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

OPENING OF THE SESSION.

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

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

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

DISCUSSION IN THE LORDS RESPECTING THE SLAVERY ABOLITION ACT.

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

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

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

THE DISSENTERS’ MARRIAGE ACT.

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

REPORT OF COMMISSION REGARDING THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, ETC.

One of the first acts of the new ministry had been the appointment of a commission, consisting principally of the heads of the church, to inquire into and report upon the changes which might be effected in regard to ecclesiastical territory, income, and patronage, so as to render remuneration and labour more commensurate with each other; to enforce residence; and to destroy the necessity of pluralities, by providing for all a sufficient maintenance. The first report of this commission was presented to the house of commons on the 19th of March, which proposed a new arrangement of diocesses. As regards emolument, the principle adopted was to proportion, as far as might be, the revenues of the bishops to their several stations and duties; not making any reduction where the income did not exceed £5500, and making an addition where it amounted to £4500. The division of large parishes was further recommended; the revenues of new incumbents being supplied from prebends and other preferments which might fall.

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

REPEATED DEFEATS OF THE MINISTRY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

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

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

On the 20th of March Sir Henry Hardinge, the secretary for Ireland, brought forward, in a committee of the whole house, the ministerial plan for settling the Irish tithe question, and moved a resolution to this effect:—“That it is expedient to abolish tithes in Ireland, and to authorise a composition in lieu of it, charged upon the land, and payment to the tithe-owner; that such rent-charge might be redeemed, and the redemption money invested in land or otherwise, for the benefit of the persons entitled to such composition; and that the arrears of tithe due in the year 1834 should be made up from what remained of the £1.000,000 advanced by parliament to the clergy of Ireland in 1833.” After a determined resistance from a large portion of the radical members, the motion was carried by a majority of fifteen. This would probably not have been the case, had not Lord John Russell given Sir Robert Peel a qualified support.

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

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

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

{WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836}

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

MUNICIPAL REFORM AND THE IRISH CHURCH.

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