Chapter XLV: {william IV. 1835—1836} (2)

The question, however, was again raised by Mr. Praed, who moved the following amendment:—“Provided always, and be it enacted, that in every borough, whether the same be a county of itself or not, where the right to vote in the election of members or a member to serve in parliament for such borough, is, according to the laws now in force, enjoyed by persons entitled to vote in virtue of some corporate right, nothing whatsoever in this act contained shall in anywise hinder or prevent any person or persons who now enjoy, or who hereafter, according to the laws now in force, might have acquired such corporate right, from enjoying or acquiring such corporate right for the purpose of voting in such elections.” In opposing this amendment, Lord John Russell denied that he was interfering by this municipal bill with the parliamentary franchise: he was not enacting that there should be no freemen; and, therefore, though there would no longer be freemen voting for members of parliament, that was only an incidental consequence of the principle of the bill, which principle was again brought into action, not with a view to parliamentary franchise, but solely with a view to municipal government. The amendment was lost by a majority of two hundred and thirty-four against two hundred and sixty-two. Another amendment, moved by Mr. Ponsonby, for the purpose of protecting inchoate rights of freemen, was equally unsuccessful, being negatived by a majority of two hundred and thirty-four to two hundred and three. The bill arranged all the boroughs into two classes, according to their population, the larger boroughs being divided into wards. In all these boroughs the bill required no qualification in the common-councilmen, except that of being ratepayers. Sir Robert Peel moved as an amendment, “Provided such members of council who shall be elected in boroughs divided into wards shall, at the time of their election, be seized or possessed of personal property of the clear value of £1000, or that they shall be rated on a rental of not less than £40 a-year: and also, provided that all such members elected in towns not divided into wards shall, at the time of their election, be seized or possessed of property, real or personal, of the clear value of £500, or be rated to the relief of the poor on a rental of not less than £20.” Sir Robert founded his amendment on what had been the usual practice in enactments regarding corporate towns. It was true that, according to ancient practice, no pecuniary qualifications were required for members of corporations; but the spirit of the charter was, that persons fit for their respective offices should be appointed; and he apprehended that, even in those self-elected corporations, whatever might be their defects in other respects, care was taken to elect persons of wealth and respectability. In opposing the amendment, Lord John Russell, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Mr. Blackburne, and other members, argued, that it was in contradiction to the spirit of the bill, not agreeable to the provisions of the original charters, incapable of being generally and fitly applied, and not productive of any practical benefit. It was lost by a majority of two hundred and sixty-seven against two hundred and four. On the same day Lord Stanley moved an amendment on the clause which fixed the periods of election, which he proposed should take place only every second year; but this also was lost by a majority of two hundred and twenty against one hundred and seventy-six. Mr. Grote attempted to engraft on this part of the bill a modification of his favourite measure of vote by ballot; but the amendment was withdrawn. A division took place on the clause of the bill which declared that the town-clerk should be removable at pleasure; but it was retained by a majority of sixty. Sir James Graham was also unsuccessful in an amendment on the clause which gave to the set of men who should once get into office a formidable instrument for maintaining their predominance, by vesting in the council the power of granting or refusing all licences within the limits of the borough; the original clause was retained by a majority of forty-five. The labours of the committee were finished, and the report received on the 17th of July; and on the 20th the bill was read a third time without a division, the opponents of the bill leaving it to the house of lords to accomplish those ameliorations in its enactments which they deemed requisite.

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

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

Sir Robert Peel, after entering at length into the merits of the amendments adopted by the lords, in which he generally concurred, proposed an additional and alternative qualification for voters—namely, the being rated in £30 in the larger, and £15 in the smaller boroughs. Ministers acceded to this. But there was a greater difficulty encountered in dealing with the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage. Lord John Russell proposed the rejection of the amendment of the lords on this subject; but Mr. Spring Rice proposed an expedient, which was ultimately adopted, to insert a clause directing the ecclesiastical patronage belonging to boroughs to be sold, and the price to be invested for the purpose of being applied to the public good of the boroughs. The amendments of the commons were taken into consideration by the lords on the 4th of September, and were agreed to with few exceptions. They still retained, however, their original amendments providing that justices should be named by the crown, and that the division into wards should begin with boroughs containing a population of six thousand. On the 7th of September the commons agreed to the bill as it had been returned to them from the house of lords, and in that shape it finally passed.

In the meantime, while the lords were occupied in the consideration of the municipal bill, the commons were occupied with the Irish church bill. Lord Morpeth brought this measure forward on the 26th of June, and in doing so, he stated that, in conformity with the bill of last year, and of that which the late government had contemplated, he proposed to convert the existing composition into an annual rent-charge, payable by the owners of the first estate of inheritance, or such other equivalent estate as would be defined by the bill, equal to seven-tenths of the amount of composition, or £70 for every £100, charging the cost of collection, to the amount of sixpence in the pound, on the tithe-owners. He thought it advisable to make a distinction not only between existing and future clerical incumbents, but also between clergymen and lay impropriators; and he proposed that the existing clerical incumbent should receive £73 8s. for every £100 of composition, the additional five per cent, being charged upon the perpetuity purchase-fund. As the machinery of the bill, he said, was similar to that of last year, he did not feel called upon to enter into any of the details respecting the real charges payable to the crown, and the investments which would be placed under the management of the commissioners of land revenue. The bill would authorise a revision and revaluation of benefices for the tithe composition; and it was likewise proposed to extend the provisions of Lord Tenterden’s act for the limitation of suits to Ireland, in the same way as it was included in the bill of last year. By the report of the commissioners of public instruction, the members of the established church amounted to 853,064, the presbyterians to 642,356, and other dissenters to 21,808 persons; tire number of Roman Catholics was 6,427,712, in other words, the members of the established church amounted to 853,064, and the number of those who dissented was 7,091,876. The distribution of the members of the established church, also, was as disproportionate as their total amount; in the diocese of Dromore, there were 264 members for every 1000 acres; in the diocese of Glogher 26 to every 1000 acres, and in the diocese of Tuam there were only 8 to every 1000 acres. It was proposed, therefore, to suspend the presentation to every benefice in Ireland where the number of Protestants did not exceed fifty. In the case of a suspended parish, in which there was any number of members of the establishment from one to fifty, the ecclesiastical commissioners would be empowered, subject to the approbation and consent of the lord-lieutenant in council, either to assign the cure of souls in that parish to the care of the neighbouring minister, or else to appoint a separate curate. It would further be enacted, that, in all parishes where there now existed a church and a resident officiating minister, a separate curate should be appointed. When the cure of souls was committed to a neighbouring minister, the amount of stipend to be given was not to be less than £10, or more than £50 per annum; and where a separate curate was appointed, the salary was not to exceed £75 per annum, with permission to live in the glebe-house, if he undertook to keep it in repair. In every parish where the cure of souls was committed to a neighbouring minister, or a separate curate, provision was to be made for the erection of suitable places of worship, fit to accommodate the probable number of the different congregations. These places of worship were to be built at a cost not exceeding £100, or rented at a cost not exceeding £15 per annum. In making all these provisions the archbishop of the province and the bishops of the diocesses were to be associated with the ecclesiastical commissioners. With respect to other parishes, if it should appear, after deducting thirty per cent, from the existing tithe-composition and the payment of that tax on ecclesiastical benefices, that the income of any parish should exceed £300 per annum, the commissioners would be required to report the circumstance on the voidance of the benefice to the lord-lieutenant, who would be empowered to make any reduction he might deem proper. The incomes, however, were in no case to be reduced below £300 per annum. In cases of livings in the gift of the crown and the bishops, he thought that it would be acknowledged there should be no delay in carrying these provisions into effect; but power would be given to indemnify the owners of lay advowsons, and to charge that indemnification on the fund which would be created from the various sources which he had mentioned, and which it was proposed to call “the reserved fund;” a fund which would be applicable to pay the salaries of the neighbouring ministers or separate curates—to pay all charges which might accrue on the suspended parishes, and to pay for the erection of places of public worship. These purposes having been satisfied, the surplus fund accruing from year to year was to be applied by the commissioners of national education in Ireland to the religious and moral instruction of all classes of the people, without reference to creeds or sects. The total number of parishes, he continued, that would come under the operation of the bill, would be eight hundred and sixty. He had computed the salaries of the curates at £65 each, and after the existing interests were provided for, there would accrue to the reserved fund, 47,898, to which there was to be added, on account of indemnified patronage, £10,178, making the whole amount £58,076. Lord Morpeth added, that in the report of the committee on public instruction, it was stated that the Protestants of the church of England were on the increase. Government was not inattentive to this; and it was proposed that where it should appear to the ecclesiastical commissioners that the number of the members of the established church in any of the suspended parishes had increased to such a degree as to make the provisions of the bill inadequate to the religious wants of the place, they would be required to report the circumstance to the lord-lieutenant, and to submit a proposition to meet the exigency. If the lord-lieutenant approved of it, the report and the proposition were to be laid on the tables of both houses of parliament; and the ecclesiastical commissioners, after the expiration of six months, would be empowered to carry the proposition into effect, if parliament should not otherwise direct.

The bill was brought in and read a first time. It contained two distinct sets of provisions—some relating solely to the mode of collecting tithe, and others which established a new distribution of the church funds, so as to create a surplus to be applied to other purposes. Sir Robert Peel gave notice on the 7th of July, that, on the motion for committing the bill, he would move an instruction to the committee to divide it into two bills, that he might have an opportunity of rejecting altogether those parts of the bill which suppressed the Protestant churches of eight hundred and sixty parishes, appropriating their revenues to purposes not immediately in connection with the interests of the established church, and of supporting those provisions in which he could concur. The bill was read a second time _pro forma_ on the 13th of July, and the motion to commit it was made on the 21st. Sir Robert Peel moved the instruction of which he had given notice. Mr. Spring Rice answered Sir Robert Peel. The debate was continued by adjournment on the 22nd and 23rd of July, the leading speakers in support of the motion being Sirs R. H. Inglis and J. Graham, Lord Stanley, and Messrs. Lefroy and Jackson; while the ministerial side of the question was maintained by Lords Howick, Morpeth, and J. Russell, and Messrs. Hume, Shiel, and O’Connell. On a division ministers had a majority of three hundred and nineteen against two hundred and eighty-two, a majority which secured the success of the bill in the commons. It passed, in fact, without any further opposition, the minority declining to discuss details which, in their opinion, could not be amended except by omitting them. Ministers, however, seem to have been convinced that Sir Robert Peel was correct in stating that they would have no surplus, for they introduced a clause providing that the consolidated fund should immediately begin to make an annual payment of £50,000, for the purposes of general education in Ireland, on the faith of the anticipated surplus, from which it was to be repaid.

The bill passed the commons on the 12th of August, and the second reading took place in the house of lords on the 20th. No opposition was made to the second reading; but it was intimated that the opposition intended in committee to strike out of the bill all the clauses containing the new scheme of appropriation, and the machinery by which it was to be worked. The house went into committee on the 24th of August, and agreed to all the clauses forming the first part of the measure, with the exception of the provisions for opening compositions and for taking a new average, both of which were expunged. When the house arrived at the first of the clauses which formed the new system of appropriation, the Earl of Haddington moved that they should be omitted. The bill was defended by the Marquises of Lansdowne, Glarincarde, and Conyngham, and Lords Plunkett, Brougham, and Glenelg. Lord Melbourne announced that if the motion were carried he would abandon the bill; he would not be a party to sending it back to the house of commons in a shape, both as to form and principle, which would compel that house to reject it entirely. On a division, the motion to omit all the appropriation clauses was carried by one hundred and thirty-eight against forty-one. Ministers now abandoned the bill, being in such a position, by the Catholic majority in the commons, as rendered honourable retreat impossible. On the 29th of August the chancellor of the exchequer brought in a bill empowering the government, on application from the clergy, and on satisfactory proof being given that the parties were not in a condition to pay, to suspend the claim for the instalment which was due from the Irish clergy to the 5th of April, 1846. This bill passed both houses without opposition.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

{WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836}

On the 25th of May the Marquis of Chandos again brought forward the subject of agricultural distress. The object of his present motion was to give relief by diminishing the pressure of the local burdens to which land was subject. The farmer, he said, severely felt the heavy pressure of the maintenance of prisoners in gaol, and building and repairing county bridges. He was likewise compelled to perform statute labour on the highway. He thought all this should be thrown on the general taxation of the country. He thought also that the duty on windows in farm-houses, and on horses used in husbandry, should be taken off entirely. Lord Althorp had made some reductions; but the benefit would be increased by total relief from these burdens. He moved:—“That an humble address be presented to his majesty, expressing the deep regret this house feels at the continuing distressed state of the agricultural interest of this country, to which the attention of parliament was called by his majesty’s most gracious speeches from the throne at the commencement of the preceding and of the present session of parliament; and humbly to represent the anxious desire of this house that the attention of his majesty’s government may be directed without delay to this subject, with a view to the immediate removal of some portion of those burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of general and local taxation.” The motion was seconded by the Earl of Darlington. Government opposed it on the ground that what was proposed would give no relief, and that the suggestions at which it pointed required deliberate consideration. The home-secretary moved an amendment to the effect, that “the house would direct its early attention to the recommendations of a committee which sat last session of parliament upon the subject of county-rates, with a view to the utmost practical alleviation of those burdens to which the land was subject through the pressure of local taxation.” Sir Robert Peel supported the amendment, because the resolution pledged the house to objects which must excite expectations on the part of the agriculturists which could not, consistently with public credit, be fulfilled. The Marquis of Chandos, however, pressed his motion to a division, which was lost by a majority of two hundred and eleven against one hundred and fifty. In the course of the debate on this subject, some members urged that all the evil had arisen from the resumption of cash payments, and that it could only be cured by some alteration of the currency. On the 1st of June, Mr. Cayley moved the appointment of “a select committee, to inquire if there be not effectual means within the reach of parliament to afford substantial relief to the agriculture of the United Kingdom, and especially to recommend to the attention of such committee the subject of a silver standard, or conjoined standard of silver and gold.” Sir Robert Peel and Mr. P. Thompson opposed the motion; and Sir C. Burrell and Messrs. Wodehouse, Bennett, and O’Connell supported it; but on a division it was lost by a majority of two hundred and sixteen against one hundred and twenty-six.

DISCUSSION REGARDING ORANGE SOCIETIES IN IRELAND.

During this session a series of parliamentary attacks were directed against the Orange lodges. On the 6th of March, Mr. Shiel moved for the production of addresses presented to the king from certain Orange societies, and the answers which had been returned to them. These papers were granted; but this did not prevent a discussion on the subject, which was distinguished chiefly by the abuse which the Irish opposition poured upon the Orangemen. The subject was again brought forward on the 23rd of March by Mr. Finn, who moved that “a select committee be appointed to inquire into the nature, character, extent, and tendency of Orange lodges, associations, or societies in Ireland, and to report their opinion thereon to the house.” Mr. Maxwell, himself an Orangeman, seconded this motion; he courted the fullest inquiry, with a hope that the committee would be constituted in the most impartial manner. The committee was appointed, and was still proceeding with its inquiries when, on the 4th of August, Mr. Hume brought part of them before the house. He had seen in newspapers portions of the evidence, real or fictitious, taken before the committee, by which it appeared that Orange lodges had been introduced into the army, and existed in thirty or forty regiments of the line. These institutions were in direct violation of general orders issued by the commander-in-chief in 1828 and 1829, which strongly reprobated the practice of holding Orange lodges in regiments. The lodges, he said, had been formed under warrants granted for that purpose by the Duke of Cumberland, who was the grand-master of the Orange body, and a field-marshal. It was true the wan-ants had not the name of his royal highness upon them; but he found it difficult to imagine that he was ignorant of the existence of Orange lodges in the army. Mr. Hume moved a string of eleven resolutions upon this subject. Mr. Patten, the chairman of the committee to which the house had referred the inquiry, complained of the manner in which the subject had been introduced; it was a farce, he said, to appoint a committee to inquire into a subject, if, when a portion of the evidence was printed, and the inquiry was still pending, a member was to be permitted to bring the subject forward in such a manner as must necessarily prejudge the whole question, and at the same time attack the character of individuals. He moved, as an amendment, “That a humble address be presented to his majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to direct his royal attention to the nature and extent of the Orange lodges in the army, in contravention of the general orders issued by the commander-in-chief in 1822 and 1829, which strongly prohibit the holding of Orange lodges in regiments: and that his majesty will be graciously pleased to direct an investigation to take place with respect to other secret societies in the army.” In the debate which followed, it was generally admitted that the establishment of lodges in the army was pregnant with mischief and indefensible; but it was maintained, that any use which had been made in this way of warrants for creating lodges had taken place without the knowledge and authority of the grand-master, or the other superior officers of the association. From statements made by the members for Sligo and Cavan, it appeared that non-commissioned officers received warrants signed by those gentlemen and by the Duke of Cumberland, none of whom knew a word about the matter. Colonel Perceval, the member for Sligo, who held the office of grand-treasurer of the grand-lodge, stated that ever since he had held that office it had been his duty to sign warrants in blank, after they had been signed by the grand-secretary, the member for Cavan. In this way, he said, numbers had been sent in parcels to his royal highness, the Duke of Cumberland, who, on seeing his signature and that of the grand-secretary, had appended his own, with the understanding that the warrants were to be applied to purposes conformable to the rules of the association. Lord John Russell condemned this practice, and observed that he could not conceive that the Duke of Cumberland would hesitate, when convinced of the use which had been made of the blank warrants bearing Iris signature, to retire from the association; and he could not conceive otherwise than that he would feel it inconsistent with his duty as a prince of the blood, and filling a high rank in the army, to continue any longer in the situation which in this society he now filled. Lord John Russell suggested that the resolution should not be adopted without giving notice to his royal highness of the debates which had taken place on his conduct as grand-master. This suggestion was adopted; and the discussion was adjourned until the 11th of August. In the interval the Duke of Cumberland addressed a letter to the chairman, in which he denied having issued, or countenanced the issuing, of warrants to soldiers, and stated, that when such a proposal had been made to him he had declined it, on the ground that it was contrary to the orders and regulations of the Horse-guards, and that if any warrants had been so used, they would be annulled. His royal highness, however, did not intimate his intention of abandoning the Orange institutions. When the discussion was resumed on the 11th of August, Mr. Hume withdrew the 5th and 6th resolutions, referring to the general interference of Orange societies in political matters, thus confining the question to their existence in the army. The only disputed matter, indeed, was the last resolution, which stated that the Duke of Cumberland “had signed warrants in his capacity of grand-master of the grand Orange lodge of Ireland, which warrants have been issued for constituting Orange lodges in the army.” Lord John Russell said, that he did not think the letter of the Duke of Cumberland to the chairman of the committee was all that was required of his royal highness; but he did not wish to agree to the resolution stating that his royal highness, in contravention of an order issued from the Horse-guards, had signed warrants, which were issued for constituting Orange lodges in the army. He wished such a clause to be omitted; and he thought the resolution would then satisfy both sides of the house. The resolution, thus modified, was carried by one hundred and eighty-three to forty; and the other resolutions were agreed to without a division.

THE VOTE BY BALLOT, ETC.

During this session, as usual after a general election, the house had to deal with a considerable number of election petitions. Among others petitions were presented from Great Yarmouth, complaining that bribery had been practised at the election for that borough; these petitions were referred to a committee. The fact of these petitions being presented, encouraged Mr. Grote to make his annual motion in favour of vote by ballot. On the 2nd of June he proposed this resolution:—“That it is the opinion of this house that the votes at elections for members of parliament should be taken by way of secret ballot.” This motion, which was supported on the same grounds which had been urged to the house on former occasions, was seconded by Sir William Molesworth. Mr. Gisborne met it by moving the previous question. Lords Howick, Stanley, and Russell, and Sir Robert Peel opposed the motion. Sir Robert Peel expressed his surprise that government, in opposing the motion, should allow it to be set aside by the previous question, instead of meeting it with a direct negative; and Lord John Russell explained that the amendment of the previous question had been moved without any arrangement with him; if it were withdrawn, he was ready to meet it with a direct negative. After some demur, Mr. Gisborne withdrew his amendment; and the motion was directly negatived by three hundred and seventeen votes against one hundred and forty-four.

THE BUDGET.

The budget was brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer on the 14th of August. He calculated the income of the country for the ensuing year, ending in July, 1836, at £45,500,000, and the expenditure at £44,715,000, leaving a surplus of £835,000. He regretted, however, to add that this surplus, calculated on the ordinary expenditure of the country, would be found to crumble away before the further statement which it was his duty to make. The interest due to the slave-owners, he said, was to be provided for from the 1st of August, 1834. The maximum of the charge to which the country might be liable from that time was £730,000; and supposing that the whole balance of the loan were to be paid up within three months on discount, and that the permanent interest on the whole amount of the stock were at once incurred, this would subject us to a further charge of £250.935, making the total charge for the present year, on account of the West Indian loan, nearly £1000. Against this, as a set off, there was a surplus of £885,000; but the probability was that the amount instead of being £1,000,000 would not exceed a sum between £600,000 and £700,000, so that the actual surplus which might be expected would be from £150,000 to £200,000. The chancellor of the exchequer said, in continuation, that though the country was in a prosperous condition, he could not under existing circumstances be expected to make any great reduction in taxation. There were two or three taxes, however, which he thought might be reduced, and he proposed to reduce the duty on licences, which would cause a loss to the revenue of about £40,000; and on flint-glass, on which there might be a loss of about £70,000. He also proposed to relieve Ireland from the stamp-duty on awards, the loss on which would not exceed £500 a year. The resolutions of the chancellor of the exchequer were agreed to without a division.

DISCUSSIONS REGARDING CANADA.

During this session, the affairs of Lower Canada were brought before parliament. That colony was still distracted by dissensions; the French, or democratic party, which had gained a majority in the house of assembly, still insisting on all their pretensions, and declaring their determination to control both the legislative council and the governor, who represented the mother country. Their cause was advocated in the British parliament by Mr. Roebuck, who, on the 9th of March presented a petition from certain members of the legislative bodies of the province, setting forth their alleged grievances. In supporting his motion, Mr. Roebuck held out threats, that, if the demands urged in the petition were not granted, there would be a rebellion. Lower Canada, he said, would inevitably follow the example of the United States. Mr. Spring Rice and Lord Stanley deprecated the use of such language as Mr. Roebuck had adopted; language like this made matters only worse. So far back as 1828, a committee had been appointed to examine into the complaints of the Canadians. Another committee was subsequently appointed, which committee had come to this general resolution:—“That the most earnest desire has existed on the part of the home government to carry into effect the suggestions of the committee of 1823; that the endeavours of the government to the ends recommended have been unremitting, and guided by the desire, in all cases, to promote the interests of the colonies; and that in several important particulars, their endeavours had been entirely successful.” Mr. Roebuck himself was a member of this committee, and was, therefore, a party to this report; but in the face of it he now blamed the government. On the other hand, petitions were presented to the commons on the 16th of March, and to the lords on the 24th of March, deprecating the violence of the democratic party in Canada. In presenting the petition to the house of lords, the Earl of Aberdeen stated that it was signed by 11,000 persons, inhabitants of Montreal and its vicinity, who represented a numerous and respectable body in that country of not less than 100,000 persons.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 10th of September. In his closing speech his majesty alluded to the civil contest still raging in the northern provinces of Spain; and intimated that he had concluded fresh conventions with Denmark, Sardinia, and Sweden, calculated to prevent the traffic in African slaves.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During this year Portugal exhibited a more peaceful and prosperous picture than it had done for some time, although it presented likewise the contests and intrigues of political parties for power and place. The Cortes met on the 2nd of January, and continued in deliberation till the 22nd of April. The principal objects of their attention were the financial state of the country, and the claims for indemnification which had been put forward by those who had suffered under the domination of Don Miguel, or who had sustained loss in consequence of the measures which had now terminated in the establishment of the constitutional system. The bill, which received the sanction of the Cortes, provided that where injuries had been directly caused by individuals, or at the instigation of any individual, such persons were liable for the whole amount, and should be called upon to make it good. On the other hand, all unavoidable damages done in order to defend or attack towns, as well as injuries done by the usurper’s government, were to be made good by the nation at large. In the course of this year, Prince Augustus of Leuchtenberg, the husband of the young queen, arrived in Portugal; but after he had been there little more than a month, he died from exposure to cold in taking exercise. The chambers justly considered the constitutional system to be greatly dependent upon a direct succession to the constitutional throne, and they, therefore, presented addresses to her majesty, praying her to enter into a new marriage as soon as possible. She replied that she was a queen and a Portuguese, and the chamber might be assured that she would make every sacrifice for the public interest which was not inconsistent with her dignity. Before the end of the year, indeed, the queen’s second marriage was arranged, the bridegroom being the nephew of the reigning Duke of Saxe Coburg, and of the King of the Belgians. In Spain all was confusion and revolt. The war between Don Carlos and the queen, or rather the Spanish nation, was still continued, and the year closed while they were yet in arms. Towards the latter part of the year an army of 6000 men crossed the Spanish frontier to assist in the struggle, a convention having been signed between Spain and Portugal to that end: these troops, however, bore no part in the events of the year. In France an attempt was made to assassinate the king, by means of what has been denominated “the infernal machine.” On the second day of the great political festival in honour of the three days of July, 1830, as his majesty was riding along the Boulevard du Temple, surrounded by the crowded citizens, and attended by his civil and military servants, an explosion like a discharge of musketry took place from the window of an adjoining house. The effect was terrific. Several officer’s of rank were killed on the spot, as well as some grenadiers of the national guard of Paris, besides mere lookers on, while many were severely wounded. The horse on which the king rode was wounded, but he himself escaped unhurt. The assassin was captured, and he turned out to be a Corsican, of the name of Fieschi, who had been a noted vagabond for many years. The questions in dispute between Belgium and Holland remained in the same unsettled state in which the preceding year had left them. In Belgium the formation of Sir Robert Peel’s ministry excited alarm, lest the policy of the great powers should now be less favourable to that country, and in particular lest Britain should refuse to interfere to compel the Germanic confederation to concede to the demands of the Belgians on the duchy of Luxembourg. Communications from the English ministry, however, allayed these fears; and finally they were relieved from them altogether by the return of the Whigs to office. In the autumn of this year the Emperor of Russia met the King of Prussia at Kalisah, and the Emperor of Austria at Toplitz; but neither of these meetings seemed to have been brought about for the purposes of political deliberation. In Greece, on the 10th of June, King Otho having come of age, assumed the reins of government, and the regency deposited its functions in his hands. The changes which took place gave great umbrage to the Greeks, who were already displeased at seeing so many offices in the hands of foreigners. Their displeasure was increased at finding there was no intention of sending away the Bavarian military. Turkey, during the present year, remained unchanged in her relations to the great European powers. On her western frontier she was occupied in putting down an insurrection which had broken out in Albania. The Porte was likewise under the necessity of using its arms against some tribes which had rebelled in Kurdistan. These disturbances saved the Pacha of Egypt from any attack by the Porte in his new Syrian acquisitions. On his part he showed no disposition to proceed further against his sovereign; he occupying himself with completing the subjugation of Syria, and attempting to extend his conquests in Arabia, which attempt was unsuccessful.