Chapter XLVII: {william IV. 1836—1837} (2)

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

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

OPERATION OF THE NEW POOR-LAWS.

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

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

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Commissioners had been appointed to inquire into the ground of the complaints which for some years had been alleged by the prevailing party in the legislature of Canada, and by their friends and agents in the British parliament. Early in this session the report of these commissioners was laid before both houses, and on the 6th of March the subject was brought before the commons by Lord John Russell. His lordship declared at the outset that lie did not intend to cast any censure upon the conduct of the house of assembly in Lower Canada. He considered their course to be so much the same with that which other popular assemblies had followed in similar circumstances, that instead of an act of self-will, or caprice, or presumption, it seemed to be rather the obligation of a general law which affects all these disputes between a popular assembly on the one hand, and the executive government on the other. The course of these controversies, he said, seemed to impress this general lesson—that popular assemblies are hardly ever wrong in the beginning, and as seldom right in the conclusion of such struggles. They began with the assertion of right, and ended with the establishment of wrong. His lordship proceeded to state what were the demands of the leading party in the house of assembly. The first was, that the legislative council, which had hitherto been appointed by the crown, should for the future be an elective assembly. The second was, that the executive council should be responsible in the same way that the cabinet was in this country. By a third, it was exacted that the law of tenures should be changed, without respect to the rights obtained under a British act of parliament. Fourthly, it was demanded that the land company should be abolished, with a similar disregard of the rights required under the same act. Having stated the difficulties of the case, Lord John Russell proceeded to propose his remedies. It was now four years and a half, he said, since the judges had received their salaries, and it was high time for parliament to interfere on their behalf. He proposed to apply a certain portion of the revenue of Canada to such payments as in their rejected supply bill of 1833 the assembly had under certain conditions agreed to. The total amount of these would be £148,000, and in so applying them they would simply be applying the revenue of the colony for its own benefit. His lordship next proposed to adopt the recommendation of the commissioners which had been sent out in 1855, and exclude the judges from the legislative council; and to provide that in future the members of that body should not be chosen so exclusively from persons of the English race, but that alternately one of French and one of British extraction should be selected. With respect to the executive council, it was proposed that there should not be more than two or three official persons among its members, and that the rest should be selected by the legislative council, and from the house of assembly. The privileges of the North American Loan Company were to be preserved inviolate; a provision might easily be framed to prevent any abuse of them. As the complaints made against the Canada tenures act were in some degree well founded, it was proposed to repeal that act, care being taken that the lights of individuals vested under it should be respected. Complaints had been likewise made of the commercial relations between Upper and Lower Canada: the upper province, by the act of 1791, was allowed no communication with the sea, except on the payment of heavy duties; while the lower province put various impediments in the way of its commercial progress. It was proposed that, with the assent of the legislatures of the two provinces, a joint committee should sit at Montreal, composed of four members of the legislative council and eight of the representative assemblies of each, making twenty-four persons in all, who should have power to prepare laws and regulations upon all matters of reciprocal intercourse. These propositions were embodied in a series of ten resolutions, of the first of which, relating to the payment of the judges, &c., Lord John Russell then moved the adoption. These resolutions met with violent opposition on the part of the Radical section of the house of commons. Mr. Leader called the measure a coercion bill, and reminded the noble mover of the rule of unlimited concession in government which his lordship had a few nights before quoted from Mr. Fox, and desired him to apply it not merely to Ireland, but to Canada. He moved as an amendment on the fourth resolution, “That it is advisable to make the legislative council of Lower Canada an elective council.” Mr. Robinson said that the whole of Mr. Leader’s argument was founded on the modest assumption that the government, and commissioners, and legislative council had been wrong, and Mr. Papineau and the house of assembly as uniformly right in everything that had been done. Mr. O’Connell warmly advocated the cause of the Papineau party, whose sole object was, separation from this country. He called for “justice to Canada.” He remarked:—“Give them a legislative council elected by themselves; place them in possession of all the rights and privileges which as British subjects they could reasonably demand; and then if they persevered in their opposition to the home government, it would be time enough to think of adopting some such measures as were now proposed.” The Canadas, he urged, ought not to be governed with reference merely to British interests: Great Britain did not want Canadian revenues. Sir William Molesworth, Colonel Thompson, and Mr. Roebuck followed on the same side of the question. The speech of the latter was more violent than any of his party. Like all the orators on his side of the house, he dwelt much on the example of the American revolution, and on the sympathy and assistance the United States would give to the Canadians if they should resist. He asked, “What is the evil, and what is the remedy? You say, Great merit exists among the public servants. But do you propose to prevent the recurrence of that difficulty? Not at all. You pay the arrears. But who will pay the servants next year? Do you believe that the house of assembly will do so? You know as well as I do that the supplies will again be stopped; the same outcries will be raised, and then, I suppose we shall have another special commission, another delay of three years, another evasion of the difficulty, another breach of faith. Distrust will continue; exasperation will increase; their powers of resistance will increase also; one effort will be made, and you and your shuffling policy, your degraded government, your unworthy peculating and mischievous officials, will be dismissed with ignominy and hatred. I hear eternal talk of the evil consequences of stopping the supplies to those official servants, and hear nothing in reproof of the legislative council, who shut up last year all the primary schools in the country, and left 60,000 children without instruction. All your regards are turned the wrong way. You sought to make out a case of hardship to the servants of the people, but turned a deaf ear to the complaints of the people themselves. But I would ask his majesty’s ministers, Have they well weighed the policy of this measure, and do they know its inevitable result? If not, I will tell them. The direct effect on the minds of the Canadian population will be a determination as soon as possible to get rid of a dominion which entails on them results so mischievous and degrading. Every year will hereafter strengthen the feeling, and lasting enmity and discord will thus be entailed on the mother country and the colony—discord that will cease only when the colony shall become a great, powerful, and independent community. The immediate effects of this feeling will not be seen in open and violent revolt, but in a silent though effective warfare against your trade. Non-intercourse will become the religion of the people: they will refuse your manufactures, and they will smuggle from the States. The long line of frontier will render all your attempts to prevent this smuggling unavailing. The people will refuse your West India produce, and they will view with hatred your schools of unprotected emigrants. Impatiently will they wait for the moment in which they shall obtain their freedom, and become part of that happy, and, for our interests, already too powerful republic. A war will be waged through an unrestricted press upon your government and your people. In America you will be held up as the oppressors of mankind, and millions will daily pray for your signal and immediate defeat. The fatal moment will at length arrive; the standard of independence will be raised; thousands of Americans will cross the frontier, and the history of Texas will tell the tale of the Canadian revolt.”

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

After this decision ministers expressed a hope that the opponents of the resolutions would not throw any obstacle in the way of government. Delay, however, was the object of the Canadian party, apparently in the hope of giving time for a demonstration of popular feeling on the other side of the Atlantic. The committee was not resumed till the 14th of April, and then the fifth resolution came under consideration. This was to the effect, “That while it is expedient to improve the composition of the executive council in Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to subject it to the responsibility demanded by the house of assembly of that province.” On this occasion Mr. Roebuck again opposed government, and intimated that the loss of the colony would be the certain eventual consequence of their adoption. At the same time he disclaimed all interest in, or desire to accelerate this consummation. Mr. Roebuck broached a plan of his own for the settlement of the dispute. Since the house would not make the legislative council elective, he proposed to abolish it altogether. The only useful power at present exercised by the legislative council was that of proposing amendments on the bills passed by the house of assembly. This office he proposed to transfer to an executive council of twelve persons, to be named by the governor, who might amend any measure sent up from the assembly, but not to have the power of rejecting it; that would rest with the governor. The great object of this scheme was, he said, to concentrate responsibility, and to bring it to bear on known individuals; but it was plain that the effect of it would be to bring the executive in constant and direct collision with the popular branch of the legislature by doing away every intermediate power. The other principal feature of Mr. Roebuck’s scheme was, the establishment of a general assembly at Montreal, composed of delegates chosen by the houses of assembly of each of our North American colonies, and clothed with certain judicial and legislative powers. In its judicial capacity this assembly was to constitute the tribunal before which the judges of the various provinces might be impeached; and, moreover, might act as a court of appeal, and exercise the functions now performed by our privy-council. Its legislative offices would relate to all matters of dispute or communication between two or more provinces. Lord John Russell remarked, in reply, that whatever might be the merits of Mr. Roebuck’s propositions, he had no authority from the colony to make them, and therefore parliament could not think of making them the basis of pacification, As for the threat that the people of Lower Canada would, if their demands were rejected, throw themselves into the arms of their republican neighbours, his lordship contented himself with saying, that it would not be their interest to act thus; nor did he think that the United States would be anxious to seek a quarrel on this question. Mr. Robinson supported and Mr. Charles Buller opposed the resolution. Mr. Roebuck again spoke in reply, and complained that Lord John Russell was doing all in his power to insult and vilify the people of Canada. He doubted, if Sir Robert Peel was in power, that with his wary prudence and caution, he would carry out these resolutions. The right honourable baronet and his friends, he said, were silent on certain questions; they no doubt acted so that they might come into office with clean hands. Sir Robert Peel said that he did not desire to withhold his sentiments on this subject. In his speech, the right honourable baronet took the same view of the policy of the government that had been expressed by Lord Stanley. He observed, that if no other, interests but those of the French Canadians were involved in the question, and if the continuation of British connexion were unpalatable to them, he would say, “God forbid that we should force it upon them.” In that case he should think it more for our interest than theirs that the connexion should be dissolved. But he-doubted, if he were to make the people of Lower Canada an offer of establishing their own government, that they would be disposed to accept it. At any rate the question could only be considered in reference to the French Canadians: there was a British population in the province, which had a right to look up to this country for a continuance of the connexion and protection on the faith of which they had established themselves in it. On a division the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred and sixty-nine against forty-six.

On the 21st of April Mr. Leader moved the postponement of the further consideration of the resolutions, in order to give time to the Canadian people to state whether or not they agreed to Mr. Roebuck’s scheme for the settlement of the existing differences between the province and the mother country. This motion was negatived by a large majority; and the house then went into committee on the sixth resolution, which declared the necessity of maintaining inviolate the privileges conferred by an act of parliament on the North American Loan Company. Mr. Roebuck moved as an amendment, deferring all resolutions on the subject of the land company “until an inquiry shall have been instituted into the circumstances under which the land held by that company had been obtained.” The company found supporters in Lord Stanley, Sir George Grey, and Mr. Robinson; and even Mr. Grote, and others of the radical section, declined voting for the amendment. On a division the resolution was carried by one hundred and sixty-six against six; and this closed the discussion on this subject in the house of commons. On the 1st of May the resolutions were communicated to the house of lords in a conference.

The subject was brought before the house of lords by Lord Glenelg on the 9th of May, in a speech of considerable length, but which contained the same arguments which had been so frequently urged in favour of the resolutions in the house of commons. The resolutions were supported by Lord Ripon, although he objected to the wording of the fourth resolution, in which it was declared that “in the existing state” of Lower Canada, it was not advisable to introduce the elective principle into the formation of the legislative council. The inference from this mode of expression was, that a state of things might arise when it would be considered advisable to do so; but he could not acquiesce in the principle under any circumstances. The only opposition to the resolutions came from Lord Brougham, who objected to them entirely, as well to the principles as to the policy of them. His lordship chiefly dwelt upon the violation of the Canadian constitution by the advance of moneys, without the consent of the house of assembly. Under the eighth resolution it was intended to replace the £30,000 advanced out of the military chest, to provide the means of defraying colonial expenses. Lord Aberdeen remarked that Lord Brougham, who seemed so shocked at the idea of interfering with the rights of the assembly, had himself been a member of that government which made this advance; and the house of assembly had designated it as a monstrous, and unconstitutional interference, and had prayed that an impeachment might be instituted against the noble and learned lord, and his late colleagues, for committing it. The resolutions were agreed to without a division, Lord Brougham alone saying, “Not content.”

STATE OF THE BANKING SYSTEM, ETC.

At this time there was a general impression that there was something in the constitution of the joint-stock banks, that imperatively called for legislative interference. This, indeed, was one of the subjects immediately pressed upon the investigation of parliament, by the speech of the lords commissioners at the opening of the session. In the preceding session a select committee had been appointed to consider the state of the law in reference to this subject. This committee began its inquiries in the month of May, and continued them till the close of the session. In their report to the house, they stated that they saw so many difficulties in the way of immediate legislation, and so many objections to imperfect legislation, that they would content themselves with merely recommending that the committee should be revived in the following session. On the 6th of February the chancellor of the exchequer made a motion to that effect, on which occasion he observed that he did not mean in any way to anticipate the decision of the committee; but he should be greatly misconceived, if it were supposed that his motion was made in hostility to the general principle of joint-stock banks. It had been suggested, he said, that the range of inquiry should be extended; but he considered the subjects already before them were sufficiently complicated and difficult, without the committee embarrassing themselves with other and still more delicate matters of investigation. He should, however, propose the extension of the committee’s inquiries to Ireland; and with that view would move the addition to its number of four Irish members, two from each side of the house. Mr. Hume expressed himself satisfied that the source of the difficulty lay, not in the conduct of the joint-stock banks, but in that of the Bank of England; and he was therefore anxious that the inquiries of the committee should be extended to the proceedings of that establishment, and generally to the banking system of the country. The conduct of the Bank of England, he contended, should form a principal object of investigation; and he moved as an amendment, “that there be an inquiry into the state of banking, and the causes for the changes of the circulation since the year 1833.” Mr. Williams seconded the amendment, and urged that the Bank of England had displayed a more reckless disregard of the interests of the country than had ever been shown by any public body intrusted with the management of its financial resources. On the 28th of December, 1833, the issues of the Bank were £32,600,000, and their stock £10,000,000. On the 28th of March, 1835, a reduction appeared on those issues of no less than four millions and a half. Nine months afterwards of the same year, there appeared an increased issue of nearly nine millions, being more than one-fourth of their circulation. What was the consequence? Such an advance in prices, that in September last the cost of every article of import was raised from forty to one hundred per cent. This caused a falling off of trade. Then again in January last the circulation of the Bank of England was £31,000,000, and they had four millions to pay that amount, being little more than half-a-crown in the pound to meet their engagements. The directors professed to have discovered that the true principle for regulating their issues was to keep gold to the amount of one-third of those issues; in so doing they would be safe. But had they acted upon that principle? At that moment, instead of having one-third, they had only about one-seventh or one-eighth of their issues in gold. Mr. Gisborne took a similar view of the conduct of the Bank of England, and urged the necessity of an inquiry into it by the committee, if, at least, any inquiry into the banking system was at all necessary. For his own part he did not think it was; it would only lead to expectations which it would be impossible to satisfy. The debate was closed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who objected to an extended inquiry, and on a division, the original motion was carried by one hundred and twenty-one to forty-two.

CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND UNDER THE WHIG ADMINISTRATION.

There was no part of the conduct of the Whig administration which had been made the subject of more incessant attack than that which related to their foreign policy. This session the line of policy followed by Lord Palmerston in reference to Spain afforded a subject for declamation against him and his coadjutors in the government. At this time British soldiers were fighting in that country without the protection of the British flag, exposed to all the shame and hardships of a disastrous and disgraceful war. In the midst of the public anxiety on this subject, it was brought forward in the house of commons by Lord Mahon, who had been under-secretary for foreign affairs during Sir Robert Peel’s administration. His lordship began by expressing a want of confidence in government, and especially in Lord Palmerston: the country, he said, had too long reposed a confidence in his exertions, to which he was neither entitled by prudence nor success. He complained that the public had been kept in a state of ignorance as to whether they were in peace or at war: in his opinion it was a peace without tranquillity, and a war without honour. The object of the quadruple alliance had been to appease the civil dissensions in Portugal; not to sanction the intervention of France and England in Spain. He did not object to this, but he lamented the policy which led to the additional articles signed in 1834, which stipulated for a certain degree of interference. The Duke of Wellington, during the four months he had been in office, had acted up to the spirit of those articles, as he was bound to do; but Lord Palmerston had thought proper to proceed still further, in suspending the foreign enlistment act, and allowing twelve thousand Englishmen to enlist under the banners of the queen. Lord Mahon went on to contrast our position throughout the peninsular campaign. The great object had then been to drive the French out of the Peninsula, an object which had been sanctioned by all our greatest statesmen for more than a century and a half. Lord Palmerston had, however, departed from this line of policy. Count Mole, the prime minister of France, said in the chamber of deputies that “Lord Palmerston considered that circumstances justified the co-operation of France; and that in March, 1836, he notified to General Sebastiani, that it was his intention to land a certain force of marines on the coast of Spain, and invited France to join in that co-operation.” At the same time he had offered France the occupation of the port of Passages, and left to her own option the mode and extent of co-operation. M. Thiers had, however, declined the invitation. Next came the revolution of La Grunja, and soon after that event, an increased force was sent to relieve ‘Bilboa. More than £540,000 had already been expended in the war, and all the accounts were not as yet sent in. In Lord Mahon’s opinion, the influence of Great Britain in Spain had not been augmented by these measures; and in proof of it, he quoted a memorial presented by the British merchants of Alicant, complaining that their interests had been neglected; and that while England carried away three-fourths of the produce of Spain, that country took very little in return. To illustrate still further the decline of our influence with the court of Madrid, Lord Mali on alluded to a tax imposed on British subjects. “For the liberation of the king,” originally levied during the captivity of King Ferdinand. This impost had been kept up though the king was now dead. There were other grievances of a similar kind: the only one redressed was a tax on military quarters, which had been ceded to the English residents. Lord Mahon concluded by calling Lord Palmerston’s attention to the provinces of Biscay and Navarre, which had been deprived of their legal rights and privileges; and by stating that in bringing the subject forward, he was not actuated by any partiality for the character of Don Carlos, or any desire of advocating his claims on the crown of Spain. Mr. Cutlar Fergusson, while he admired the moderate and gentlemanly tone of Lord Mahon’s speech, yet differed from his views. He defended the alteration which Ferdinand had made in the succession, and which had been approved of by the Cortes, while they looked upon Don Carlos as a pretender. The question for the house was whether this country was not justified in abiding by the terms of the quadripartite treaty. We had done no more, he said, till Don Carlos had published the edict of Durango: after that infamous act an important article had been appended to the treaty, stipulating that arms and stores should be supplied for the maintenance of the war, and, if necessary, a naval force. Mr. Gaily Knight also dissented from Mr. Fergusson’s views; while Mr. Fenton expressed his disapprobation of Lord Palmerston’s policy. Lord Francis Egerton said that in his opinion we were not the proper judges of the value of those rights and privileges for which the Basques were contending; if they themselves held them dear, every Englishman must feel a sympathy in their cause. Mr. Fergusson had admitted, that could we have foreseen the failure of the Spanish generals, it would have altered the question as to the policy of suspending the foreign enlistment act: were not ministers culpable for such a want of foresight? Surely Lord Palmerston and his colleagues might have distinguished between Spain in the sixteenth century, when her troops were the first in Europe, and Spain during the peninsular war. Had not Lord Palmerston been in office during the war of independence? And had not its records taught him something of Spanish generals and Spanish promises? At any rate, a glance at the pages of a Napier, or a word from the Duke of Wellington would have enlightened him on the subject. Mr. Cutlar Fergusson explained, and Mr. Poulter protested against the doctrine which stigmatized the conduct of government as intervention. Mr. Grove Price defended the character of Don Carlos from the aspersions which had been cast upon it, but he did not attempt to contradict or justify the fact that the Don had issued the edict of Durango; and that, in virtue of the same, some English soldiers had already been executed. He concluded with a tribute to his virtue and magnanimity: so far was he from desiring to establish the Inquisition, that his prime-minister, the Bishop of Leon, had spent his whole life in writing against it, and had obtained a decree from his sovereign for its abolition. This was denied by Mr. O’Connell, whom Mr. Grove Price allowed to be a competent judge, because he was acquainted with the Bishop of Leon. He added, “If it were supposed that Don Carlos admitted Mr. O’Connell to his councils, then no English Protestant gentleman would for a moment countenance the pretensions of that sovereign.”

Lord Palmerston ably defended the policy of government. He added, if he could contribute to the establishment of the same happy things in Spain as existed in Belgium and Portugal, he should esteem it a proud satisfaction to the latest hour of his life. Sir Robert Peel complained of the line of argument which had been adopted by Lord Palmerston. He, for one, he said, openly disavowed all participation in the principles, or sympathy with the cause of Don Carlos. He would not say that the objects of British policy would be advanced by the success of that prince; and he begged most distinctly to state that he wished to see Spain in the settled enjoyment of a free and enlightened form of civil government. His belief was, however, that the course adopted by ministers was defeating its professed objects; it was obstructing the cause of improvement, and was calculated neither to raise our own character as a nation, nor to gain the affections of Spain. Mr. O’Connell spoke against Don Carlos, dwelling at length upon the atrocities which had been committed by his partisans.

Lord Mahon did not press any motion on the house, he being satisfied with the expression of opinion that had taken place. Within a fortnight after the debate the news of the defeat at Hernani arrived; and the political opponents of government eagerly embraced this opportunity of renewing the discussion. Immediately after the Easter recess, Sir Henry Hardinge gave notice of a motion on the subject, which motion he brought forward on the 18th of April. He moved an address to the king, “praying his majesty not to renew the order in council of the 10th of June, 1835, granting permission to British subjects to enlist in the service of the Queen of Spain, which order in council would expire on the 10th of June next following; and praying also that directions be given that his majesty’s marine forces shall not be employed in the civil contests now prevailing in Spain, otherwise than in that naval co-operation which his majesty has engaged to afford, if necessary, under the stipulations of the treaty.” The motion was seconded by Sir Stratford Canning, who argued that the terms of the quadruple treaty did not justify the interference which government had sanctioned. On the other hand Lord Leveson contended that government had gained great credit on the continent by the part they had taken in the affairs of the Peninsula. Mr. Charles Wood defended ministers: it was not uncommon, he said, for British officers to enter into the service of foreign powers. Mr. O’Connell remarked on the eagerness with which the recent disasters of the legion had been seized upon by gentlemen on the opposite side. The actions in which they had clone honour to the British name were forgotten: nothing was said of their victories; but not a moment was lost in bringing forward their defeat. On the second night of the debate, Sir Robert Inglis adverted to the imputation which had been cast against his party—that they were the enemies of the church of Rome in their own country, but its friends in every other—from its association with despotism. He disclaimed any such feeling on their part. Mr. Ward considered that opposition tried this question merely by the test of success. Why did not Sir Henry Hardinge bring forward his motion soon after the victory at Bilboa? This was the first time that he had heard in the house of commons the misfortunes of an ally urged as a reason for abandoning him. No doubt the legion had suffered a defeat; but not such as to disable their continuance of the contest. General Evans had admitted his losses; yet it was at this moment that an old brother officer in arms had chosen to aggravate his difficulties, and to cast against him the weight of his authority in military matters. In reply to the imputation as to the motives in bringing forward the motion at this particular time, Lord Mahon contended that he and his friends had hitherto exercised the utmost forbearance on the subject. He contended, further, that the country had a right to know whether there was any limit to the expense which we might be called upon to incur: twenty millions might be required by Spain; and did the treaty oblige us to furnish that sum? Dr. Lushington followed, and endeavoured to show that the naval co-operation which we had afforded was precisely that contemplated by the treaty. It could not be supposed that the British fleet was to encounter that of Don Carlos, and drive it off the seas; the only object could be a naval warfare along the coast. He considered the existence of the present government depended on this motion: if the reformed parliament of Great Britain should now abandon those principles of liberty and independence which they had hitherto advocated, the news would be hailed at St. Petersburg by bonfires. Mr. Grove Price supported the motion, and Mr. Shiel opposed it. The latter argued that the government had put a right construction on the stipulations of the quadruple treaty; and he entered into a long apology for the ill success of General Evans, and for the excesses and insubordination of his troops. With respect to the naval co-operation of the mariners, he referred to their motto, _Per mare ‘per terras_, as of itself setting that question at rest. He continued:—“But it is alleged that the measures of the government have not produced any good result. I ask if those measures had not been adopted, what would have befallen the Spanish people? Would not Bilboa have been taken by assault, and the standard of Don Carlos at this moment have been floating from the castle of St Sebastian? Or try the allegation by another test. Let me suppose this motion carried. The courier that will convey the intelligence will carry tidings of great joy to St. Petersburg, to Vienna, to Berlin; and he will convey tidings of great dismay wherever men value the possession of liberty, or pant for its enjoyment. It will palsy the arm of freedom in Spain—a terrible revulsion will be produced: from Calpe to the Pyrenees the cry, ‘We are betrayed by England!’ will be heard; and over that nation which you indeed have betrayed, Don Carlos will march without an obstacle to Madrid.” In conclusion, Mr. Shiel said:—“I have heard it asked whether it be befitting that in Spain, the theatre of so many of their best exploits, British soldiers should give way before bands of mountain peasants? I feel the force of that question; but there is another which I venture to put to every man who hears me, and, above all, to the gallant officer by whom the motion has been brought forward: I invoke the same recollections; I appeal to the same glorious remembrances, and in the name of those scenes, of which he was not only an eye-witness, but a sharer, I ask, whether it be befitting that in that land, consecrated as it is in the annals of England’s glory, a terrible, remorseless, relentless despotism should be established; and that the throne which England saved should be filled by the tyrant by whom your own countrymen, after the heat of battle, have been savagely and deliberately murdered? Never! the people of this country are averse, indeed, to wanton and unnecessary war; but where the honour of England is at stake, there is no consequence which they are not prepared to meet—no hazard which they will not be prompt to encounter.” The debate was protracted by another adjournment to a third night.

Lord Palmerston, who had been repeatedly called upon in the course of the debates, at length arose to defend government from the imputations of their opponents. The manner, he said, in which the question had been dealt with by opposition was not fitted to impress other people with a notion that their own convictions were very strong in respect to it. Having made a few observations on the conduct of General Evans, on the sufferings of the British soldiers, and on the atrocities which had been committed, he came to the question of the quadruple treaty. Every one knew, he said, under what circumstances, and for what purpose it was concluded. The most superficial observer must have perceived that the change that had been made in the accession to the Spanish throne, though accompanied by every circumstance cf legality and regularity, yet laid the foundation for a great revolution in that country. It was not merely the substitution of an infant female for a grown man; out of that change must spring a great alteration in the internal constitutions of Spain, and a change too in the tendencies of its external policy. What happened on the death of Ferdinand? A Spanish minister came to London to request of the English government a force to assist in expelling Don Miguel from Portugal. This was refused; but we said:—“Though we will not give you an army, we will give you a treaty.” Accordingly, we joined with the three “great powers” of the west of Europe in one alliance. This was the quadruple treaty; and such was its effect, that even before the ratifications were exchanged, Don Miguel’s army of twelve thousand men laid down their arms, and the two pretenders abandoned Portugal. Then came the escape of Don Carlos, and his placing himself at the head of the insurgents in the Basque provinces. The four contracting parties considered the treaty to be fully in force, and that it was only necessary to prepare new articles in order to provide for the altered circumstances of the war, which articles, however, should be considered merely as complementary of the original treaty. The noble lord proceeded to defend the manner in which those articles had been carried into execution; and, in conclusion, he observed, that however skilfully the question before them might be disguised, it involved no less than, whether England should continue to fulfil her engagement with the Queen of Spain, or should disgracefully abandon an ally whom she had pledged herself to succour. But this was far short of the real and ultimate tendency of the motion. The contest now waging in Spain was but a portion of that great conflict which was going on elsewhere throughout the world. The house had to decide that night between two opposite systems of foreign policy. Even these were not isolated principles, which might be taken or neglected by themselves: they were intimately connected with, and affected also our domestic interests. The object of the one party was to support Don Carlos and despotism; the other to uphold Isabella and the constitution. Sir Robert Peel replied to Lord Palmerston, reproducing the arguments and facts already urged; and the discussion was closed by Lord John Russell, who defended the existing state of our foreign relations, by contrasting it with that in which they had been left by the right honourable baronet and his friends in 1830, when they quitted office. On a division Sir Henry Hardinge’s motion was rejected by two hundred and seventy-eight against two hundred and forty-two. The same subject was brought under the consideration of the lords, April 21st, by Lord Alvanley, in a motion for the dispatches of Lord John Hay relative to the affair at Hernani.

A circumstance occurred which brought the state of our relations with Russia under the attention of parliament. A mercantile house, Messrs. Bell, of London, had fitted out a vessel laden with goods for the coast of Circassia. On attempting to land her cargo she was seized by a Russian man-of-war and confiscated, first, on the ground of the violation of the blockade, to which the Russian government had subjected the whole of the Circassian coast; and, secondly, for an alleged violation of the custom-house regulations established by the same authority in the ports of that country. This proceeding of the Russian government was generally denounced as unjustifiable; and the subject was brought before parliament on the 17th of March by Mr. Roebuck, who moved for copies of all the correspondence which had taken place between the British and Russian government on this transaction. Lord Palmerston entered into a lengthy statement of the occurrence; but the papers were refused, on the ground that the question was still under negotiation. Mr. Roebuck repeated his inquiries on the subject, when Lord Palmerston stated that, upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, the government had come to the conclusion that there was no room for making any further demand upon the Russian government. Another matter, in which our relations with Russia were concerned, was brought before the house of commons on the 22nd of March by Lord Dudley, who inquired of Lord Palmerston whether any consular agent had been appointed to the state of Cracow. Lord Dudley Stuart said, that in the preceding session a motion had been made by the member for Lancaster for an address to the king, praying that his majesty would appoint a consul to reside in that city; and that the noble secretary for foreign affairs had stated that it was the intention of government to make such appointment, on which the motion for an address was withdrawn. Lord Palmerston admitted the correctness of this statement. It had been his intention, he said, to send a consular agent to Cracow; but he had since been induced to depart from his purpose, finding that greater difficulties would attend it than he had anticipated. His lordship did not state what those difficulties were, and the house seems not to have thought it expedient to press the government further upon the subject.

A more important point of our foreign policy considered this session was the situation of the province of Texas. On the 9th of March, Mr. Barlow Hay moved for “copies of all correspondence which had taken place between our government and those of Mexico and of the United States on this subject;” stating at the same time his sense of its importance, and the suspicions he entertained of the ambitious project of the American government in respect to it. Lord Palmerston admitted the importance of the subject, and its claim on the anxious attention both of the government and the public; but he resisted the production of the papers moved for, and on a division the motion was rejected by a majority of forty-one to twenty-eight.

MOTION ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}