Chapter XLVI: {william IV. 1836—1837} (3)

In the preceding session a bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt had passed the commons; but from the lateness of the session it was not possible for the lords when they received it to take it into consideration. The lord-chancellor took up the subject himself in this session, and a bill similar to that passed by the commons was read a first time in the lords on the 30th of June. It is unnecessary to give the details of the measure as it was not permitted to pass. Indeed the house of lords seemed determined to avenge itself upon the ministry which carried the reform bill, by rejecting every measure it introduced, except where the feeling of the country was too strongly in favour of such measure. On the second reading, the Duke of Wellington objected to taking up at that late stage of the session a measure involving such extensive interests, and introducing a new system of law. His grace moved, that the bill should be read a second time that day three months; and his motion was supported by Lords Abinger and Wynford, who considered it not as rejecting any measure founded on the principle of the bill, but only as postponing the subject till they could give it due consideration. Lord Melbourne agreed that the weight of business pressing on the house was great; but he did not see anything in it to deter them from proceeding with the bill. The proposed delay, he said, would only carry them to the 1st of August; and there was no probability that parliament would be prorogued by that time. On a division, however, the amendment was carried; and, although the session continued till the 20th of August, the subject was not again brought forward.

In his speech from the throne the king had recommended to parliament “to consider whether better provision may not be made for the speedy and satisfactory administration of justice in some of the departments of law, and more particularly in the court of chancery.” These words had been used in reference to an intention entertained by government of dividing the office of lord-high-chancellor, distributing his functions between two judges, one of whom should be devoted to legal duties, and be irremovable; while the other should retain the patronage and political functions of the office, and should be liable to be dismissed with the ministry who appointed him. On the 28th of April, the lord-chancellor brought forward the measures by which this great change was to be effected; and he founded the necessity of such measures on the increase of business which had taken place in the court of chancery, both in its original and appellate jurisdictions. On the second reading, Lord Lyndhurst objected to these bills in point of principle. The necessary effect of the measure would be, he said, to divide the office of chancellor, and to disqualify him from exercising that very appellate jurisdiction to which he was devoted. This separation was most mischievous; and he, therefore, moved that the bill should be read that day six months. On the other hand, Lord Langdale did not consider that the bill went far enough. He held it, he said, to be indispensable that the judicial functions of the chancellor should be separated from those which were not judicial: and that the appellate jurisdiction of the house of lords ought to be placed under the superintendence of a judge having no connexion with politics. Lord Abinger and the Duke of Wellington supported the amendment; the latter remarking that it was important that the most eminent lawyer in the country should occupy such a position in the councils of his majesty as would give those councils substantial benefit from his assistance. Lord Melbourne contended that the house could do no wrong in going into committee on the bill; but on a division the amendment was carried by a majority of ninety-four to twenty-nine.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.

Early in the session Mr. C. Buller brought the subject of the constitution of election committees before the house of commons, by moving “that a select committee be appointed to consider the laws relating to the determination of the right of voting, and the trial of controverted elections.” In accordance with this motion a select committee was appointed; but its labours did not produce any fruit during the session. In the preceding sessions bills had passed the commons to disfranchise the borough of Stafford; but none of them had passed both houses. A new bill was passed by the commons, and sent up to the lords in the beginning of April. The second reading of the bill, however, in the house of lords was negatived by thirty-eight against twenty-two. On the 11th of June Mr. Hume moved in the house of commons, that the issuing of the writ for the borough of Stafford should be suspended till ten days after the next meeting of parliament. This motion was carried by a great majority.

Another question touching parliamentary purity attracted still greater attention. In May, 1835, the election of Colonel Bruen and Mr. Cavanagh for the county of Carlow had been declared void by a committee. Messrs. Vigors and Raphael were elected in their stead, by the interest of Mr. O’Connell. Upon a petition, however, these members were likewise unseated; and Mr. Raphael, who resided in London, believing that Mr. O’Connell had broken faith with him, published an account of the bargain by which he had secured his influence. It appeared that Mr. Raphael had begun to negociate with the agitator while the petition against Colonel Bruen and Mr. Cavanagh was still pending, and that the pecuniary treaty was concluded on that petition having terminated unfavourably for these gentlemen. Its terms were contained in the following letter, dated the 1st of June:—“My dear sir, you have acceded to the terms proposed to you for the election of the county of Carlow, viz., you are to pay before nomination £1,000—say £1,000, and a like sum after being returned; the first to be paid absolutely and entirely for being nominated; the second to be paid only in the event of your having been returned, I hereby undertake to guarantee and save you harmless from any and every other expense whatever, whether of agents, carriages, counsel, petition against the return, or of any other description; and I make this guarantee in the fullest sense of the honourable engagement that you should not possibly be required to pay one shilling more in any event or upon any contingency whatever.” Mr. O’Connell wrote to the electors on behalf of Mr. Raphael; and, on the 10th of June, Mr. O’Connell received through his son, likewise a member of parliament, the first sum of £1,000. On the 21st he was returned; and, Mr. O’Connell, apparently in the prospect of a petition, wrote thus to his protégé:—“I am glad to tell you our prospects of success are, I do believe, quite conclusive. If only one liberal is to be returned, you are to be the man.

“I have made all the pecuniary arrangements.... I send you Vigors’ letter to me. You see how secure we are. Return me this letter, as it vouches £800 for me; with that you have nothing to do, as, of course, I stand between you and everybody.” A petition was presented against the return; and Mr. Raphael considered himself safe from any further expense except the sum of £1,000, and that Mr. O’Connell was bound by the express terms of his bargain to defend the return. He paid the second moiety of the £2,000 on the 28th of July; on the same day the election committee was ballotted. Mr. John O’Connell, who had received the money for his father, was himself one of that committee; and the inquiry before the committee having resolved into a scrutiny, Mr. Raphael soon discovered that it was in vain to look for the defence of his seat to his patron. He called upon Mr. O’Connell to fulfil his engagement “by fighting the battle so long as a bad vote for the petitioners remained on the poll, or, at all events, to the end of the session.” Mr. O’Connell, however, either could not, or would not defend him; and Mr. Raphael was unseated along with his colleague, on which he published the whole transaction to the world. Mr. O’Connell felt himself called upon to answer the charges brought against him; and in doing so, he began by abusing his antagonist. He had been put on his guard, he said, against Mr. Raphael, by “honest and experienced men,” who described him as “a faithless creature, who never observed any contract, and with whom no person ever had a dealing without being sorry for it.” He admitted the terms of the bargain; but he insisted that he only acted as the agent of Mr. Vigors, who was to pay all additional expenses of opposing the petition. The first sum of £1,000 which Mr. Raphael had paid was expended on the five days’ poll; and he urged that that gentleman had made an excellent bargain in having all the expenses of nomination and of a five days’ poll covered by a £1,000. As for the other £1,000, he said, that had been expended in opposing the petition; and he maintained that there was no obligation to continue that opposition after it had been spent. He averred that he himself had no pecuniary interest in the matter: he had made the bargain as acting for Mr. Vigors; for Mr. Vigors he had received the money; and to him he had paid it over. The most important part of his statement consisted in the admission of the purpose to which the money was to be applied in the event of the return not being petitioned against. He remarked:—“If there should be no petition, I agreed, on the part of Mr. Vigors, that the greater part of the second £1,000, more than one-half of it, whatever might be the amount of the election expenses, should be applied to commence the formation of a fund to indemnify the voters, and their friends and relations, from that persecution which the Carlow landlords then threatened, and have since exercised.” The subject was brought before parliament on the 11th of February, by a petition, setting forth the transaction in all its bearings. The petition likewise stated “that the ballot for a committee to try the validity of the said return took place on the same afternoon on which the said second sum of £1,000 had been so received, in respect of such return, by the said John O’Connell, for the use of his father, the said Daniel O’Connell; and the said John O’Connell and Daniel O’Connell both attended the ballot for the committee; and the said John O’Connell was, in fact, balloted as a member to serve on the said committee, and suffered to remain on the list of the committee as finally reduced.” The petition prayed the house to inquire into the circumstances; and if the charge was proved, to adopt proper proceedings against the offenders. A similar petition was presented from Bath by Mr. Hardy, member for Bradford; and it was proposed that both petitions should be taken into consideration on Monday, the 15th. Mr. O’Connell wished the discussion to be postponed till the following day, which was agreed to. On the 16th, therefore, Mr. Hardy moved—“That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the traffic and agreement alleged to have taken place between Mr. Daniel O’Connell and Mr. Alexander Raphael, as one of the representatives for the county of Carlow, at the last election, and to report the minutes of evidence taken before them, with their observations thereon.” Mr. Hardy said, that it was impossible to consider Mr. O’Connell in the light of an agent, as he had argued: who had ever heard of an agent becoming responsible to such an amount? The terms of agreement were:—“I hereby undertake to guarantee and save you harmless from any and every other expense whatsoever, whether of agents, carriages, counsel, petition against the return, or of any other description.” He thought that Mr. Vigors was the agent of Mr. O’Connell at Carlow, rather than that Mr. O’Connell was the agent of Mr. Vigors in London. At all events, the consequence of the bargain was, that the member for Dublin, whether as agent or principal, put in two members for Carlow—Mr. Vigors, his old friend _ex animo_; and Mr. Raphael, his friend _ex contracta_. It was of little consequence what sort of representatives the people of Carlow obtained. They had never seen or heard Mr. Raphael, and they knew nothing about his physical or intellectual abilities; all they knew was his address, and there was nothing of him even in that but his name. In his reply, Mr. O’Connell was violent and abusive. He contended that it was not on account of anything connected with the Carlow election that this charge was brought forward, but because he had contributed to put down Toryism, and had thrown his weight into the scale of government to accomplish that object. He demanded that the inquiry should be extensive and searching, comprehending the whole of the late general election. He had neither been guilty of pecuniary corruption by pocketing money, nor of personal corruption by gratifying his ambition by the improper expenditure of the money on the part of other persons. He entered into a long explanation of the circumstances connected with the transaction, making it appear that he was guiltless in the matter. In conclusion, he demanded that the committee should not be a packed one, but a committee of “honourable gentlemen,” by which he meant gentlemen who would be inclined to take a favourable view of the matter. Mr. Warburton thought that the motion did not make the object of the committee sufficiently extensive; and he moved the addition of words, authorising them to inquire likewise into “the application of the money said to have been received, together with the circumstances under which it was received and expended.” This amendment was agreed to and the committee named, its members being taken equally from both sides of the house. Two nominees were likewise appointed, to assist in conducting the evidence; Mr. Sergeant Wilde on the part of Mr. O’Connell, and Sir Frederick Pollock on the part of his opponents. The report of the committee was made to the house by Mr. Colborne, their chairman, on the 11th of March. It read thus:—“It appears to your committee that the subject may be arranged under two heads—the first as relating to any traffic or agreement between Mr. Raphael and Mr. O’Connell for a seat in parliament, and the second as to the application of the sum said to have been given. It does not appear to your committee to be necessary for them to enter upon any detailed summary of the evidence, but they feel it their duty to draw the attention of the house very briefly to the main points as they bear upon the question. It appears that Mr. O’Connell addressed a letter, bearing date, 1st of June, 1835, in which the agreement for Mr. Raphael’s return for the county of Carlow for £2,000 was concluded; the committee cannot help observing that the whole tone and tenour of this letter was calculated to excite much suspicion and grave animadversion; but they must add that, upon a very careful investigation, it appeared that previous conferences and communications had taken place between Mr. Raphael, Mr. Vigors, and other persons connected with the county of Carlow, and that Mr. O’Connell was acting on this occasion at the express direction of Mr. Raphael, and was the only medium between Mr. Raphael and Mr. Vigors and the Political Club at Carlow. It appears that the money was placed to Mr. O’Connell’s general account at his bankers in London. It was, however, advanced the moment it was called for to Mr. Vigors; and though some of it was paid in bills, the discount was allowed; the amount, therefore, was available whenever wanted, and no charge of pecuniary interest can be attached to Mr. O’Connell. It appears also that this money had been expended under the immediate direction of Mr. Vigors and others connected with the county of Carlow, in what may be called legal expenses, or so unavoidable that your committee see no reason to question their legality; and that the balance was absorbed in defending the return of Mr. Raphael and Mr. Vigors before the committee appointed to investigate on the 21st of July, 1835.” In moving that this report and the evidence given should be printed, Mr. Colborne stated, that the committee had agreed unanimously in the conclusion at which they arrived, and that he had no doubt that the house would join in the same opinion, if the evidence were considered without any reference to party feeling. To a large party in the house, however, it appeared that the committee had overlooked some important branches of the inquiry, and that matter had come out in the evidence before the committee which rendered the whole transaction more deserving of animadversion. On the 21st of April Mr. Hardy again brought the subject forward, by moving a series of resolutions, which declared that in the transactions regarding this seat, a breach of privilege had been committed. The committee itself had found it proved, he said, that the £2,000 had been paid and received; and if the circumstances under which the payment and receipt were made did not constitute a breach of privilege, he had yet to learn what did. He entered at length into the transaction, and concluded by asserting that there could not be a grosser case in all its bearings. There had been a contract to sell a seat in parliament for £2,000. which money was to be appropriated in a corrupt manner in every respect. From the evidence respecting the Carlow club, and the £1,000 to be applied to county purposes, nothing could be clearer than this, that any tenant who fell into arrear of rent from want of prudence or honesty, had only to say to the club, “My landlord is against you: if you expect my vote, you must pay my arrears of rent.” What a system was this! If this were to pass unnoticed, who could object to the formation of Conservative clubs which would say to those shopkeepers, before whose doors the priests threatened the grass should grow, we will indemnify you. Better be without the reform-bill than see it leading to consequences like these. In former days they had to complain of boroughs being sold: now they had to complain of the sale of whole counties. Mr. O’Connell applauded the conduct of the members, of the committee: he would take this stand on their report. The agitator was defended by Lord Francis Egerton; not that he would wish to imitate his conduct in many respects, but he thought that he stood acquitted of pecuniary corruption: that charge was removed, and he did not feel inclined to go upon the minor questions arising out of the case, because he wished to be indulgent as well as just. The transaction did not meet with his approbation, but he looked upon it as part, at least, of the extensive system now carried on in Ireland; and however strongly he might deprecate that system, he doubted whether it would be just or expedient to bring the member for Dublin, or the other parties concerned in the transaction, within the resolutions of the house. He was not one of those who felt a desire to bring any man within the scope of a breach of their privileges. His own hands were as clean as those of most men; but if everything that he had done in violation of those privileges was to be brought against him, if a king’s evidence could be found in every instance, he scarcely knew whether he might not himself be brought under the grasp of a tribunal. Messrs. Warburton and Barneby also stood up in the defence of Mr. O’Connell. Lord John Russell likewise expressed his hostility to any further inquiry or proceeding: the report of the committee, he said, ought not to be touched, unless the house saw some very strong reasons to doubt the opinions, or to distrust the integrity, of the gentlemen who had given judgment. He moved as an amendment a series of resolutions which embodied the report verbatim, making them the resolutions of the house, instead of the opinions of the committee. This amendment, after Lord Stanley, Sir Robert Peel, and others had spoken in favour of the original motion, and other members had stood up in defence of Mr. O’Connell, was carried by a majority of two hundred and forty-three against one hundred and sixty-nine. Lord Stanley then brought the question still more to the point by moving, “That it appears to this house that there was between the contracting parties a distinct understanding, that, if any surplus should remain, after providing for the legal expenses of the election of Mr. Raphael, that surplus should be applied in the first place to the defraying of the expenses of the petition against the former elections, and in the next place to the funds of the Carlow Liberal Club: and such understanding calls for the notice of the house, as liable to serious abuse, as a dangerous precedent, and as tending to subvert the purity and freedom of election.” Lord John, in reply, said he would not enter into the matter of fact, or go into anything beyond the report of the committee; if the committee had agreed on these facts, and had thought them material, they would have been reported to the house.

Mr. O’Connell’s troubles, however, were not yet over. His return, with that of his colleague, Mr. Ruthven, for the city of Dublin at the last election had been petitioned against, and the petition had been referred to an election committee in the usual manner. This committee made their report on the 16th of May, when Messrs. O’Connell and Ruthven were declared not duly elected, and they were accordingly unseated. Their opponents at the election, Messrs. Hamilton and West, took their seats, after having been excluded from them for the whole of one session and the half of another: the committee being appointed in 1835, and not making their report before 1836. Mr. O’Connell appears to have expected the result of the inquiry, for he had provided himself with another seat by making one of his underlings accept the Chiltern Hundreds: he appeared during the session as the member for Kilkenny. Subsequently, Mr. O’Connell presented a petition from certain electors of Dublin, praying that Messrs. Hamilton and West should not be allowed to retain their seats, on the ground that they had been connected with bribery; but the report of the committee had stated that they were neither directly nor indirectly implicated in such practices, and after reading this report the house ordered the petition to be withdrawn. Mr. O’Connell maintained that the petition must be received, because the matter to which it referred had not come under the consideration of the committee; but the attorney-general declared his opinion that it was one which could not be received, and the speaker having given an opinion to the same effect, it was withdrawn accordingly.

NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

In consequence of the destruction of the two houses of parliament by fire in October, 1834, a select committee had been appointed by the commons, to consider all matters connected with the rebuilding of these edifices. On their report an address had been presented to the crown to appoint commissioners to receive plans, from which they were to select not fewer than three nor more than five, to be submitted to the committee. More than ninety plans had been sent in, and the commissioners had selected four out of that number. On the 9th of February the committee was renewed for the purpose of determining which of these four ought to be adopted. This was followed by a motion of Mr. Hume’s, that it should be an instruction to the committee to consider the propriety of removing the houses of parliament to another site. Mr. Hume, however, only found forty-four members to vote for his motion, while one hundred and forty-three voted against it. The committee thus re-appointed made their report on the 16th of March. On that day they recommended that an address should be presented to his majesty, praying him to institute inquiries as to what would be the probable expense of executing the plan which had been sent in by Mr. Barry, the architect. The committee had not selected Mr. Barry’s plan as the best, but they thought that they could not safely recommend the adoption of any plan till the expense had been ascertained. The proceeding, was, however, a plain intimation that the plan in question was the one which had been adopted by the commissioners and the committee; and a committee also, in the house of lords had arrived at the same conclusion. The manner of proceeding gave great offence to the other competitors, and they brought their complaints before the house of commons on the 21st of June, in a petition which was presented by Mr. Hume. In this petition they stated that they had, in framing their plans, taken the probable expense into account, as an important consideration to which it was their duty to attend; whereas the commissioners declared that they had come to a decision wholly independent of the question of expense, as not an object for their consideration. They further stated that they had given their best attention to the elaborate instructions given by the committee, as regarded the number and dimensions of the offices and apartments, while the commissioners had been guided in the choice by the “superiority of the elevation.” They further stated, that, as well by the general instructions, as by a report of the committee of the house on sound and ventilation, of which committee one of the commissioners was a member, they had constructed their plans with reference to these objects; but the commissioners had declared that they did not allow that subject to have weight in determining their preference. Finally, they arraigned the preference which had been given to the four selected plans, and prayed the house would either hear them by counsel at the bar, or appoint competent persons to examine the grounds of the report of the commissioners before finally adopting any of the plans. This matter was allowed to lie over till the evidence which had been taken before the select committee, by whom the commissioners themselves had been examined, should be laid on the table. The whole subject was brought forward by Mr. Hume on the 21st of July, who, after descanting at length on the conduct of the commissioners, moved for an address to the crown, to direct a new competition of designs, without limits as to the style of architecture, but not to exceed a certain fixed sum as the cost of erection, and that such designs should be examined and reported on by commissioners to be afterwards appointed. The motion was supported by Messrs. Estcourt and Hawes, and opposed by Mr. Tracy and Sir Robert Peel. The latter said, that if the house agreed to this motion, they would strike a fatal blow at the principles of competition, and teach the most eminent of living architects to rue the day when, in compliance with an invitation of the house of commons, they sent in plans which had the misfortune to be found entitled to preference. The question raised was, not whether they should finally resolve to adopt Mr. Barry’s plan, but whether they would declare all the proceedings that had been taken to be null. There was not even an implied engagement with Mr. Barry; there was only a _prima facie_ presumption that his plan was entitled to a preference. Mr. Hume, on seeing the general feeling of the house was against his proposition, withdrew it; at the same time he considered that his arguments had not only been unanswered, but that they were unanswerable.

On the 3rd of May Mr. Grantley Berkeley renewed his proposition for admitting ladies to the debates, by moving a resolution, “that it is the opinion of this house that the resolution of the select committee appointed in 1835 to consider the means of admitting ladies to a portion of the stranger’s gallery, together with the plan of Sir R. Smirke, should be adopted, and that means should be taken to carry it into effect with as little delay as possible.” This resolution was carried by a majority of one hundred and thirty-two against ninety. The chancellor of the exchequer accordingly proposed among the miscellaneous estimates, a grant of £400 to defray the expenses of fitting up an adequate portion of the gallery; but after a few words from the Earl of Lincoln against the motion and Lord Palmerston in favour of it, the grant was refused by a majority of forty-two against twenty-eight.

MOTION FOR THE REDUCTION OF TAXATION ON BEHALF OF THE AGRICULTURISTS.

The complaints of the agricultural class of the community still continued. On the 8th of February Lord John Russell proposed the appointment of a select committee, in order to inquire into the distress complained of. His lordship said, that whenever any great branch of national industry was materially depressed, it was the duty of parliament to give a favourable consideration to the complaints of those engaged in it, to ascertain the facts of the case, and, if possible, to devise a remedy: the proposition arose more from this feeling than from any hope that the distress of the agriculturists would be removed by legislative interference. The low price of wheat was stated to be the main cause of it: the price of wheat was certainly low, but there had not been an equal fall in the other descriptions of grain. The committee would, therefore, have to consider not only the price of wheat, but likewise the alterations which had taken place in the prices of different kinds of grain, and of other articles of agricultural produce. They would likewise have to ascertain and to weigh the changes already produced, and likely to be produced, by the new system of poor-laws. This committee was appointed, and a similar committee was appointed on the 18th of February by the house of lords. These committees, however, ended in doing nothing. On the 21st of July the chairman of the committee stated to the house of commons that they had resolved merely to report the evidence, without giving any opinion. A draft of a report had been drawn up by the chairman; but so much of it was objected to by those who advocated the agricultural interest, that no report was made.

In the meantime the Marquis of Chandos had brought forward the distresses of the agriculturists. On the 27th of April he moved a resolution, “That in the application of any surplus revenue towards the relief of the burdens of the country, either by the remission of taxation or otherwise, due regard should be had to the necessity of a portion thereof being applied to the relief of the agricultural interests.” Lord John Russell objected to the motion, both on its merits and because he thought it premature to entertain such a question, before the agricultural committee, then sitting, had made its report. On a division it was lost by a majority of two hundred and eight against one hundred and seventy-two.

THE BUDGET, ETC.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

By an act of the 4th and 5th of William IV. an additional duty of fifty per cent, had been imposed on spirit licenses. On the 10th of March Mr. Divett moved that the house should resolve itself into committee, for the purpose of considering the propriety of repealing this impost. The chancellor of the exchequer resisted this motion, opposing it principally on account of the circumstances under which it was brought forward.

Various proposals had been made at different times for the reduction or purification of the pension list. This list had been, in truth, as much a matter of political principle and of party feeling as of mere finance. In the preceding session government had consented that it should be printed; and on April 19th, Mr. Whittle Harvey moved this resolution on the subject:—“That a select committee be appointed to revise each pension specified in the return ordered to be printed on the 28th of June, 1836, with a view to ascertain whether the continued payment thereof is justified by the circumstances of the original grant, or the condition of the parties now receiving the same, and to report thereon to the house.” After stating that there were 1303 persons on the pension list, who received amongst them about £150,000 a year, Mr. Harvey went into a history of the restrictions which had been laid on the granting of pensions out of the civil list, from the original bill of Mr. Burke, down to the accession of his present majesty. The motion was opposed by Lord John Russell, on the ground that it contained a proposition against which parliament had already decided, and as being inconsistent with the practice which had been uniformly folio wed. Mr. Harvey’s views were enforced by Mr. Hume; but the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and sixty-eight against one hundred and forty-six.

The chancellor of the exchequer opened his budget on the 6th of May. He first explained that the receipts of the last year had exceeded the estimate by the sum of £338,000; while, on the other hand, the expenditure had somewhat exceeded the estimates. The income of last year, he said, had been £46,381,000, and he calculated that it would amount during the present year to £46,980,000. The total expenditure would be £45,205,807 leaving a surplus of £1,774,193. But out of this surplus payment would fall to be made, on account of the West Indian compensation during the year, to the amount of £1,118,633, leaving, as the utmost disposable surplus with which parliament had to deal, a sum of £662,000. Had it not been for the sums payable to the West-India planters, there would have been a surplus of £2,000,000. In applying what surplus there was, he continued, to the reduction of taxation, he preferred selecting those taxes the repeal of which extinguished a source of fraud to those which merely afford relief. The duties he proposed to reduce were those on paper, plain and stained, on newspapers, and on farming buildings; and he proposed to give up those on taxed carts, and the additional fifty per cent, on spirit licenses. The amount of all the taxes which he proposed to remit would be £351,000 this year, though when the proposed reductions came into full operation it would amount to £568,000. At the same time, when the increased consumption of paper was taken into account, the money collected from the penny stamp, and the increase of duty from advertisements, he thought he might say that government would not lose £530,000 a year. The reduction of the stamp on newspapers was from fourpence to one penny, and this was deemed by many as being a sacrifice to the demands of a political party, and not a concession to principles of political economy or fiscal regulations. There were many other articles, it was contended, a reduction of the duties on which would contribute much more to the comfort of the community, and especially of those classes to which it was proposed to give cheap newspapers and cheap spirits. Sir C. Knightley moved, that instead of diminishing the duty on newspapers, the duty on soap should be reduced. This he represented as a duty which pressed not only severely on the lower classes, but unequally in comparison with the more wealthy—the soap of the poor man being taxed at seventy-five per cent., and that of the rich man only at thirty per cent. This motion was seconded by Mr. C. Barclay, who showed that the revenue would not sustain a greater loss from the reduction of this tax than would arise from the diminution in newspaper stamp duties. The chancellor of the exchequer, however, preferred a reduction of the stamp duties to those on soap; and on a division the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and forty-one against two hundred and eight.

As the law stood, there was no distinction between newspapers in regard of duty on account of their size, all differences of this nature having been removed in 1828. By the new bill, however, this distinction was restored, an additional duty being imposed on every newspaper containing more than a certain number of square inches of surface. Government was accused of having so selected the particular number of inches, as to impose the additional duty on some of the most influential journals opposed to them, while it did not apply to their supporters. This imputation was repelled by the chancellor of the exchequer; but it was still maintained that such must have been its effect. It was finally proposed and acceded to by the chancellor of the exchequer, that 1530 square inches, of which the paper might consist without any additional duty, should be limited to the printed part of the sheet, excluding the margin, which would meet the size of every paper in the metropolis. If the sheet exceeded 1530 square inches, but did not exceed 2295, an additional duty of one halfpenny was to be paid; and if it exceeded the latter quantity, an additional duty of one penny. Supplements were likewise to pay a penny additional. Mr. Grote subsequently moved that every newspaper should be stamped with a die peculiar to itself—an enactment which was introduced into the bill. The bill enacted that two proprietors of a newspaper should be registered along with the printer and publisher. The Radicals contended that every proprietor should be registered at the stamp-office, and on the third reading a clause to this effect was carried, the chancellor of the exchequer himself agreeing to it, he conceiving that it might establish a salutary system of restraint. When the bill went up to the lords this was the only clause which encountered opposition; and Lord Lyndhurst moved that it should be omitted, on the ground that the regulations contained in it were arbitrary, inquisitorial, unjust, and unnecessary. It was defended by the lord-chancellor and Lord Melbourne; but the motion was carried by a majority of sixty-one against forty. The bill was returned to the commons without any other alteration; but on the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer it was laid aside, on the principle that the privileges of the members of the house of commons did not permit them to entertain an amended money-bill. The chancellor of the exchequer, however, immediately brought in a bill which was an exact copy of the one laid aside, except that the provisions in dispute were omitted, and this bill passed both houses without delay.

The speech from the throne on the opening of the session had recommended an addition of five thousand men to the navy. This increase was explained during the session to be necessary for the protection of British merchants in various parts of the globe—in the Pacific, at Lima, Mexico, Valparaiso, the coast of Peru, the northern coasts of the Brazils, the West Indies, Newfoundland, and the East India and the African stations. Demands had been made in all these quarters, and it was impossible to comply with them without withdrawing the British naval force from Spain and Portugal, where their presence was necessary. On these grounds government proposed this additional force, which was granted without a division. Mr. Hume, however, endeavoured to make a compensating saving, by moving a reduction of five thousand men in the army estimates; and when this motion was negatived, he moved a proposition which was directed against the foot-guards as being costly troops, maintained rather for show than use, and enjoying, for the sake of the aristocracy, prerogatives which were degrading to the rest of the army: this motion was also negatived.

DISCUSSIONS ON THE COLONIES, AND ON OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS.

At this period unfortunate differences prevailed in the Mauritius between a part of the inhabitants and the government authorities, and between one part of the population and another. They were said to have originated in the desire of the white population to evade some requirements of the law for the emancipation of the negroes, and were believed to have been aggravated on the one side by indiscretion, and on the other by the honest determination of the colonial judges. More than one judge had been recalled; and the consequence was, that their successors, who did not pursue the same course, and the governors of the island were denounced as being guilty of abusing their powers to prevent the due execution of the emancipation act. Mr. Roebuck took the discontented inhabitants of the Mauritius under his protection. On the 15th of February he moved, that a select committee should be appointed to inquire into the administration of justice in that colony. In supporting his motion, he said, that the mother country had declared slave-trading to be a felony, and that an order in council was passed, in consequence of a resolution of that house, to the effect that no governor, judge, or registrar of slaves, should hold any species of slave property, either directly, in trust, or mortgage. He charged the whole body of these functionaries with holding slave property. He also charged Sir C. Colville, the late governor, with speculating and creating debts in slave property; and Chief-justice Blackburne, the officers of the supreme court, and nearly all the functionaries of the island, with the same gross violation of that order in council. Proof of the fact, he said, was to be found in the despatches of government; and he entered into a long statement of mal-administration in that colony. His statements, on the other hand, were represented by Sir George Grey, on the part of government, as being mere repetitions of charges which had been abandoned by those who had made them. The motion was supported by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Fowell Buxton, the latter of whom said, that few persons residing in that colony knew its affairs better than himself: the slave-trade prevailed in the Mauritius to such an extent, that no man could live for a single week as governor of the island and not behold it under his own eyes; yet not one of the persons engaged in the traffic had ever been brought to justice. The reason assigned for this impunity was this—that no court would authorise a conviction, and that no public functionary would countenance the man who dared to interfere with their trade. If a case arose in which it was necessary that the prosecution should be placed upon record, the accused was, on the first opportunity, set at liberty. The motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and twenty-nine against seventy-one.

It has been recorded in previous pages that political discontents prevailed in Canada. A large portion of the population, French in its origin, democratic and intemperate in its views, led on by demagogues, insisted on demands equally inconsistent with a monarchical government, and with the supremacy of the mother country. Democratical as were their views, however, they had their supporters in the British parliament. On the 16th of May, Mr. Roebuck brought forward a proposition for the reform of the Canadian constitution, which was to consist in nothing less than in making both branches of the colonial legislature elective. By the statute 81 George III., c. 81, a constitution was given to the province of Quebec, which was thereby divided into Lower and Upper Canada. The constitution so conferred was professedly a copy of the constitution of England, the governor being as the king, the legislative council as the house of lords, and the house of assembly as the house of commons. The object, Mr. Roebuck said, which he had in view, was to amend the legislative council, which was no more like the house of lords at home than the governor of the colony was like the king of these realms. The members of the legislative council, unlike the house of lords, were poor, having no tenants, and consequently no influence over the people; they were a _clique_ holding power for their own purposes. On the explanation of ministers, Mr. Hume advised Mr. Roebuck to withdraw his motion, to which he conceded, stating at the same time that he did not believe government were prepared to say, that a measure for remedying the evils complained of was delayed only till the report of the commissioners was received.

Civil war was still raging in Spain, and at this time Great Britain had interfered in it—an interference which seemed to be becoming more direct as the situation of the queen became more critical, and the arms of the Carlists more successful. This subject occupied the attention of parliament. On the 26th of February Mr. Maclean directed the attention of the house of commons to the policy of this interference. Lord Palmerston said that the interference of this country had consisted, first, in executing the quadruple treaty; and, secondly, in the order of council which, by suspending the foreign enlistment act, had enabled the British legion to be formed which was now serving in Spain. The treaty was now a new one; it did not raise any new question—no motion had ever been made to disapprove of it—and its execution was admitted to be imperative.

In the beginning of tin’s year a body of Austrian, Russian, and Prussian troops took possession of Cracow, under the plea that it contained the elements of dangerous conspiracies against the neighbouring governments. This subject was brought before the commons on the 18th of March, by Sir Stratford Canning, from whose statement it appeared that the three powers had addressed a joint note to the senate of Cracow, requesting them to send away, within eight days, all Polish refugees and other dangerous persons; that the senate had remonstrated against so sweeping a denunciation of individuals, many of whom had resided there for years; and that military possession had, notwithstanding, been taken on the expiry of eight days. It appeared further that four hundred persons had been given up to the commander of the occupying force, while others had been required to find security for their good behaviour; and that the president of the republic had resigned, and his place been supplied by the direct nomination of the residents of the three powers. He contended that by the treaty of Vienna, the establishment of Cracow as an independent state was provided for by definite articles, being placed under the protection of the three powers now in possession of it. He further contended that Great Britain was an immediate party to this treaty; that its provisions were parcel of our solemn engagements; and that when circumstances so extraordinary occurred as that a state, recognised as free and independent, was occupied by foreign powers, we were called on to look narrowly at these events, and see whether or not any violation of the engagement in which we were interested had or had not taken place. Lord Palmerston found himself embarrassed in consequence of neither the facts of the military occupation nor its causes having been communicated to him officially by the three powers. Doubtless the demand made by the three powers appeared contrary to the letter of the treaty, for they had not required that the persons referred to should be given up by the powers to which they might belong, but that they should be within eight days removed from the territory of Cracow. At the same time, if statements made were true, as a justification of the measure, it might be considered as falling within the spirit of the treaty. It was alleged that a number of person, natives of Poland, assembled in the state of Cracow, and inspired by feelings which, perhaps, in their peculiar circumstances were natural, had established a communication with the inhabitants of some of the Russian and other parts of Poland, calculated to disturb the tranquillity of the neighbouring states. But, although the three powers might be justified in requesting such persons to depart, it did not follow that they were justified in going to the extreme of military occupation because their demand was not immediately conceded. As yet no sufficient reason had been given either for the entrance of the troops, or the shortness of the interval which had been allowed between the demand and the entrance which had been effected. All friendly means should have been exhausted before any such measures were resorted to; and, under all circumstances, as Great Britain had been a party to the treaty of Vienna, it was the duty of those powers when they made the demand, and before they had recourse to occupation, to have communicated to the government of this country the grounds on which they thought themselves entitled to act, and the intentions they were about to put into execution. Messrs. O’Connell and Hume were violent against the three powers. They advised, that if any part of the Russian Dutch loan due by this country was not yet paid, payment should be refused till satisfaction was made to Cracow. Lord John Russell deprecated the language used by Messrs. O’Connell and Hume, the more particularly as the honour of Great Britain was not committed in the transaction. Lord Dudley Stuart, however, contended that the honour of Great Britain had been violated. Was it, he asked, no affront for these three powers to tell a great country like this, that the treaty which settled the possession of all the powers of Europe, and to which it was a party, should be infringed and violated at their pleasure? By the violation of the neutrality of Cracow a serious blow had been inflicted on our national reputation, and on the security of Europe.

During this session a lengthened discussion took place regarding the dangers to which Europe was exposed from the systematic encroachments of Russia. The subject was introduced by Lord Dudley Stuart, who moved an address for the production of the treaty of Constantinople between Russia and the Porte, the treaty of St. Petersburg, the correspondence between the British government and the governments of Russia and Turkey relative to these treaties, and the correspondence between the courts of London and St. Petersburg regarding the remonstrances made by this country against the conduct of Russia towards Poland. In reply, Lord Palmerston said, that he had no objection to produce the treaty of Constantinople, or Hoonkiar Skelessi; but he would not concede the production of others. Government, in fact, was not officially possessed of the treaty of St. Petersburg, and therefore it could not be supplied. The correspondence, again, between this country, Russia, and Turkey, relative to these treaties could not be produced without inconvenience to the public service, and would not answer any object which could be contemplated by the motion. With respect to the correspondence which had taken place on the subject of Poland, he thought its production would not serve any useful purpose. No good could arise from publishing to the world, after an interval of three years, all the correspondence which might have passed between two governments on a subject respecting which their opinion differed, especially as nothing had occurred to make the publication of this correspondence necessary. Lord Dudley Stuart expressed himself satisfied with the papers which the foreign secretary had expressed himself willing to give. Mr. P. M. Stewart, however, thought that Lord Palmerston was either too blind as regarded Russia, or too confiding. He referred to his lordship’s predictions in 1832 regarding Poland. He had said, “As to the idea which is entertained by some honourable gentlemen of its being the intention of Russia to exterminate a large kingdom like Poland, either morally or politically, it is so utterly impracticable that there need be no apprehension of its ever being attempted.” Since these words had been spoken, Poland had been politically exterminated, and every exertion had been made to exterminate her morally. On the 20th of April Mr. P. M.