Chapter XLIX: {victoria. 1838—1839} (1)

Parliament reassembles: Debates on Canada; Address to the
Throne moved by Lord John Russell; Bill for suspending; the
Lower Canadian Constitution..... The Question of Election
Committees..... Motion for the Ballot..... Parliamentary
Qualification Bill..... Personal Attacks..... Revival of
Anti-slavery Agitation..... Debates on the Irish Poor-law
Bill: the Bill carried in the Commons..... Motion for the
Repeal of the Appropriation Clause..... Ministerial Plan for
settling the Tithe Question..... Committee of the House of
Commons upon the Irish Municipal Bill; the Bill
rejected..... The Coronation..... Debates in the House of
Commons on the Irish Tithe Question..... The Irish Poor
Law Bill carried in the Lords..... Projected Formation
of a Colony in New Zealand..... Financial Statements.....
Motion for Repeal of the Corn Laws..... Various Improvements
in the Law..... A Select Committee to inquire into the
Operation of the Poor Laws..... Combinations in England and
Ireland..... Debates in Parliament on John Thorn, alias Sir
William Courtenay..... Committee on Church Lands..... Act
for abolishing Pluralities..... The Subject of Education
discussed in both Houses..... The Question of Canada
renewed..... Queen Prorogues Parliament..... Disaffection
among the Working Classes..... Proposed Reduction of the
Rates of Postage..... The State of Ireland..... The Affairs
of Canada..... The State of the Continent.

PARLIAMENT REASSEMBLES—DEBATES ON CANADA—ADDRESS TO THE THRONE MOVED BY LORD JOHN RUSSELL—BILL FOR SUSPENDING THE LOWER CANADIAN CONSTITUTION.

{A.D. 1838}

Parliament reassembled on the 16th of January. The first subject brought under notice was the affairs of Canada. This subject was introduced by Lord John Russell, who, after recapitulating the principal events that had occurred since the connexion of that colony with Great Britain down to the report of the Committee in 1828, took up his ground on that report, which the assembly of Lower Canada had characterised as “an imperishable monument to the justice and profound wisdom of the committee, an authentic testimonial of the reality of their grievances and of the justice of their complaints, faithfully interpreting their wishes and their wants.” It might have been supposed, said his lordship, that after the people and the government of this country had proved themselves anxious to perform all that was asked for, and that was indicated by the reports of the committee, the Canadians would have been not only satisfied, but willing to express their cordiality towards the British government. The case, however, was the very reverse of this. On the 6th of December, 1828, the house of assembly resolved, “That on the permanent settlement before mentioned being effected, it would be expedient to render the governor, lieutenant-governor, or person administering the government for the time being, the judges and executive councillors, independent of the annual vote of that house, to the extent of their present salaries.” Having adverted to other resolutions indicative of the growing dissatisfaction of the Canadians, Lord John Russell proceeded to state what had been done in order to remedy the grievances set forth in those resolutions. The independence of the judges was demanded; and Lord Ripon, then colonial-secretary, had fully concurred in its reasonableness, and had suggested a method for carrying it into effect. The house of assembly, however, instead of following out that suggestion, tacked to the law by which the independence of the judges was to be secured, certain provisions relating to the hereditary revenues of the crown, and to the establishment of a court of impeachment for the judges. Then as regarded the subject on which the widest difference between the assembly and the imperial government had existed, no opposition had been offered to the terms of the assembly’s resolutions. The judges were informed, instantly, that, with the exception of the chief-justice, it was no longer desirable that they should sit in the legislative council; and a number of persons were added to that body totally independent of the crown, and giving a great majority in the council to those who were unconnected with the government. Of the forty members in the council, indeed, not less than eighteen were French Canadians: many of the members of English origin had quitted the province, and but seven remained in official connexion with the government. Another grievance related to the crown and clergy reserves; and Lord Ripon had declared it was time to put an end to the old system; and only differed from the assembly in wishing to prevent an undue facility from being afforded to poor and improvident purchasers of waste lands. Concessions had also been made with reference to the property of the Jesuits, which had been ordered to be applied to educational purposes; and on the much-contested, question of the duties collected under the earlier acts, and which the crown had, according to law, the right of appropriating. The Canadians, however, made but a poor return for these concessions. In 1833, a supply-bill, containing the most unusual conditions, passed the house of assembly; and in the following year the assembly adopted a course which had led to the present difficulties. It passed ninety-two resolutions, some of grievance, some of eulogy, and some of vituperation, and amounting in the whole to a long and vehement remonstrance; and after spending an entire session in framing it, it separated without having passed any bill of supply. Since that time no supplies had been voted. The demeanour of the house of assembly in the following years remained unaltered. At the commencement of his speech, Lord John Russell proposed a bill to suspend for a certain time the existing constitution of Lower Canada; and at the same time moved an address pledging the house to assist her majesty in restoring tranquillity to her Canadian dominions, His lordship in the course of his speech gave an outline of the intended bill. Mr. Hume entered at considerable length into a recapitulation of the past and present grievances of the Canadians. He laid the blame of all that had passed upon the government; and said that “it was not the man who shed blood, but the man who stimulated him to shed it, who was the guilty party.” Mr. Grote likewise opposed the proposed address. He threw the responsibility of the failure of the measure which had been taken to adjust the financial disputes, upon Lord Ripon. Not content, he said, with advancing a claim to the appropriation of the casual and territorial revenues to the purposes of civil government without the consent of the house of assembly, that noble lord had thought fit to propose to make them over to the clergy; a step which was at once novel and preposterous, and only embroiled matters still further. Sir Robert Peel promised his cordial assent to the address, because this country had acted with justice and liberality towards Canada. He thought that the military force in the colony should have been immediately increased. In reply, Lord Howick endeavoured to show that the government was not culpable in omitting to back their resolutions of the last year with a military force. He argued that regiments were not necessary to put down meetings: they could not stop speeches, prevent resolutions, or obtain juries to convict men for seditious practices. An additional regiment introduced into Halifax had, in fact, served greatly to increase the existing discontents. Mr. Charles Buller supported the address: the law should be vindicated, and the insurgents put down without parley, unless we were prepared to consent to a separation, and leave Canada to itself. There was no ground for separation, nor could we with any regard to the interests of the colony consent to abandon it; but we ought to comply without delay with all the just demands of the Canadians. Mr. Leader complained of being taken by surprise; and wished the house to adjourn for the purpose of giving himself and his friends time to consider what course they should take, and an opportunity of refuting the “fallacies contained in the noble lord’s speech.” This was opposed by Lord John Russell; and on a division the motion for an address was carried by one hundred and eighty-eight against twenty-eight.

On the following day Lord John Russell brought in his proposed bill for the suspension of the existing constitution of Canada. Its leading object was to enable the governor-general and council, on the motion of the governor, to pass any laws which might be considered necessary, during the present suspension of the legislature of the province. In addition to the means for suppressing the insurrection, the bill would authorise the governor-general to grant a general amnesty. With respect to the future government of Canada, his lordship said, that it was the intention of ministers that the governor-general should be invested with power to convene a certain number of persons; namely, three from the legislative councils of each of the two provinces, and ten “representatives” from each, to form a council to concert with the governor-general as to the measures which might be deemed advisable for the adjustment of the affairs of the province. The persons to be named would be chosen by the governor-general, while those who were to be convened, having a “representative character,” might of course be taken from the legislative assembly. But as in Lower Canada it was almost impossible that the assembly would be brought to act beneficially, it would be competent to the governor-general, both in the upper and lower province, to hold elections for persons, amounting to twenty in the whole, to concert with him upon the general state of affairs. Sir Hussey Vivian said that Mr. Hume had constantly stated in that house that he anticipated a revolt. No man had a greater right to foretell such an event. The man Martin had recently foretold the destruction of Yorkminster; and he had set it on fire to fulfil his prediction. In that same manner Mr. Hume had taken measures for the fulfilment of his prophecy. Sir George Grey, the under-secretary for the colonial department, in reply to some doubts which had been raised by Mr. Hume, with respect to the loyalty of the other North American colonies, cited facts to prove that the best possible spirit existed in Nova Scotia and New-Brunswick. Mr. Grote presented a petition from Mr. Roebuck, praying that he might be heard at the bar in defence of the house of assembly of Lower Canada, and in opposition to the ministerial bill. Lord John Russell thought that the house should be allowed time to consider precedents; and after some further conversation Mr. Grote gave notice that he should call the attention of the house to the subject on the 22nd instant.

The subject of Canada was brought before the lords on the 18th by Lord Glenelg, who moved an appropriate address to the queen. After adverting to the disturbances in that province, he made reference to the intended bill. With respect to ulterior arrangements his lordship saw great difficulties in the way of a legislative union between the two provinces, but thought that considerable advantage might be made of a federal union. In conclusion, his lordship defended the conduct of government in not having provided more troops for the suppression of the insurrection. Lord Brougham ridiculed Lord Glenelg’s despatches, to which that noble lord had referred in his speech. The despatches were certainly the products of a mind inadequately furnished with the experience and knowledge necessary for the task imposed upon it, but the honest intentions of the writer were equally apparent, and might have protected him from the kind of invective to which the noble logomachist subjected him. The whole speech of Lord Brougham was as damaging to himself as to the government which he assailed. He pursued the government with his irony and abuse, not because they fell beneath him in point of honour or principle, but because they refused him their confidence as Lord Chancellor, when his indiscretions and bullying rendered him alike odious to the court and unendurable to the cabinet. His lordship might fairly be considered as much the “standing counsel” for the rebellious Canadians in the lords, as Mr. Roebuck was in the commons. Nevertheless, the denunciations of the government by the eccentric peer were in the main grounded upon their errors and vacillation, and these vices in their administration were depicted with a scathing eloquence, and a malignant spirit. Lord Brougham played the part of a mere partisan, and was set down by the country for such. The patriotic prestige associated with his name passed away. Lord Melbourne, in reply, characterized Lord Brougham’s speech as “a laboured and extreme concentration of bitterness.” Concerning the charge against ministers of neglect in not providing against the possibility of an outbreak, his lordship said, that it was a difficult question which they had at the time to decide. By not re-enforcing the troops they ran the hazard of what had in fact occurred; but, on the other hand, had a considerable force been sent out, there would have been an end to all chance of an amicable termination of the disputes. It would have been instantly said, that we were filling Canada with troops, and thus manifesting a fixed intention of putting down public opinion by the force of arms. The Duke of Wellington thought that the proceeding’s should have originated in a message from the throne. With reference to the military force, he said, that he must do ministers the justice to say that he could not blame them for not having taken more active measures. He knew several officers in Canada; and the opinions of these officers, as communicated to him, were, that there was not the smallest reason to apprehend anything like insurrection in Lower Canada. At the same time his grace said, that he could not understand, when ministers had found it expedient to move troops from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into Canada, they did not despatch fresh troops to supply the vacancy thereby occasioned. After a few words from Lord Ripon, who condemned the conduct of government, the Marquess of Lansdowne applauded the candid terms in which the Duke of Wellington had expressed his opinion on the military part of the question. The Earl of Durham, who was about to go to Canada as governor, said, that it was impossible for words to express the reluctance with which he had undertaken the arduous task, and incurred the awful responsibility which must await him in his endeavours to execute the objects of his mission. Nothing but the most determined devotion to her majesty’s service, and the welfare of his country, could have induced him to place himself in a situation in which he feared he should neither answer the expectations of his friends nor of the nation. Having noticed the various tasks which would devolve upon him, his lordship said, with an apparent foreboding of what was to ensue, that he could not perform them without the cordial and energetic support of her majesty’s cabinet, and the co-operation of the imperial parliament. Lord Glenelg closed the debate by retaliating on Lord Brougham for his fierce denunciations, and by contrasting his conduct with that of the Duke of Wellington, whose candour and magnanimity he warmly applauded. The address was agreed to.

According to notice, Mr. Grote, on the 22nd, moved that Mr. Roebuck be heard at the bar on behalf of the assembly of Lower Canada. Mr. Roebuck relied on his title to be heard as general agent for Canada, but Mr. Gladstone said that he was not aware of any constitutional right or privilege of colonies to appoint agents with powers of this general description. If allowed in practice, it must lead to interminable confusion. Lords John Russell and Stanley also expressed their aversion to hearing Mr. Roebuck as an agent of Canada; but the motion was nevertheless acceded to. On the motion of Lord John Russell, the bill for suspending the constitution of Lower Canada was read a second time; after which Mr. Roebuck proceeded to address the house from the bar. His speech was by no means conciliatory; on the contrary, his care seems to have been to select such topics as were most likely to prove generally offensive to its temper and prejudices. In one passage he remarked:—“Talk to me of being frightened at being called a traitor—at being told that my life is forfeited—at the newspapers setting forth that I am to be sent to the Tower! Do you think that I am to be frightened by such petty warfare? If I be guilty, why are there not some who dare accuse me lawfully? My papers have been seized: let them be produced. I have not run away; because I know that there is a jury in England who will render justice to the accused.” On Mr. Roebuck’s withdrawal, Mr. Hume moved the postponement of the committal to that day six months. This motion was opposed by Sir George Grey, who replied to Mr. Roebuck’s speech in a very able harangue. The subject was renewed on the 23rd by Sir William Molesworth. Mr. E. L. Bulwer gave ministers his cordial support. He thanked them for their determination to uphold the integrity of the empire, and the maintenance of the laws; and he thanked them as a friend to a liberal and popular policy, for their declared resolution to redress the grievances of Canada. He would ask Mr. Warburton and his friends, whether they were aware that till within the last seventy years printing-presses were forbidden in Canada; that at the present day the vast majority of the electors could neither read nor write; and that it often happened that the foreman of a jury could not give in the verdict because of his inability to read it? Was this a colony fit for independence? If it were a republic to-morrow, it would be a monster in legislation—half-jacobinism, half-feudalism. Mr. Bulwer designated Mr. Warburton and his friends, in the course of his speech, by the term “philosophical Radicals.” Mr. Grote, in reply, said that the designation was quite as respectable as that of “literary Whig.” The debate was closed by Lord John Russell. On a division the motion for going into committee was carried by a majority of two hundred and sixty-two against sixteen.

On the 25th Lord John Russell, in moving that “the speaker leave the chair,” informed the house that in looking over the bill he had discovered a number of verbal amendments to be necessary, and as it was desirable that these should be introduced before the discussion was resumed, he moved that the house should go into committee _pro forma_, in order to afford an opportunity for making the requisite alterations. Upon the question being put that the speaker leave the chair, Mr. Warburton rose and made a long speech in opposition, which was utterly devoid of any practicable suggestions. A long and rambling debate followed, without any result.

The house finally went into committee on the bill, and proceeded to consider its several clauses and the amendments proposed. The bill was read a third time, and passed on the 29th of January, by a majority of one hundred and ten against eight; the few non-contents being Radicals.

The bill came before the house of lords on the 2nd of February, when it was opposed by Lord Brougham, in a speech of great length, and in an acrimonious spirit. Lord Aberdeen also, though he supported the measure, expressed his contempt of the conduct of the government. Lord Melbourne had quietly endured the repeated attacks which had been made upon ministers; but on this occasion he retorted upon Lord Brougham’s censures with effect, convicting him of a change of principles. Lord Brougham, however, denied that he had changed his principles: it was the changed conduct of others that had compelled him to oppose them. The Duke of Wellington reproduced many of the objections that had been urged in the other house; and Lord Wharncliffe, after censuring the conduct of ministers, gave a reluctant assent to the bill. On the 5th of February, Mr. Roebuck, on the motion of Lord Brougham, was heard by the house as agent of the house of assembly of Lower Canada; but his speech could not arrest the progress of the bill. It was passed on the 8th of February; Lords Ellenborough, Fitzwilliam, and Brougham entering their protest against it on the journals of the house, though on different grounds.

The more important provisions of this bill were that the constitution of Lower Canada was suspended till November, 1840; that her majesty in council was empowered to constitute a special council, and to appoint, or authorize the governor to appoint, such and so many special councillors as she might think proper; that, until November, 1840, it should be lawful for the governor, with the advice and consent of the majority of the said councillors convened for the purpose, to make such laws or ordinances for the peace, welfare, and good government of Lower Canada, as the legislature of that province, at the time of passing the act, was empowered; and that all laws or ordinances so made, subject to the provisions thereinafter contained for disallowance thereof by her majesty, should have the like force and effect as laws passed by the legislative bodies. The governor was further to have the initiative of all measures proposed in the council, five of whom were required for a quorum. Certain restrictive provisoes followed these provisions; and it was directed that a copy of every such law or ordinance “be transmitted to the home government;” and her majesty was empowered, by an order in council, to disallow the same at any time within two years of its receipt.

THE QUESTION OF ELECTION COMMITTEES, ETC.

The necessity of an alteration in the mode of trying controverted elections under the Grenville act had been for some time recognised. A committee had been appointed to examine into this subject in 1837; and Mr. Charles Buller, who had been chairman of that committee, had, on the 21st of November last, obtained leave to bring in a bill similar in its provisions to one which had been in the hands of members in the preceding session, though it had not been discussed. This bill, in its original shape, provided that three assessors, barristers of seven years’ standing, should be appointed by the speaker to act as chairmen of election committees for the session only, and as a court of appeal from the revising barristers on matters of law. Subsequently, when this bill was in progress, it was thought better that the first assessors should be named in the act, and that the future appointments should be placed at the disposal of the speaker, subject to the confirmation of the house. On the same day Mr. O’Connell said that he also had devised a plan, which he was anxious to submit to the consideration of the house; and he likewise obtained leave to bring in a bill for a similar purpose. Mr. Buller’s bill came on for the second reading on the 27th of November, when it was opposed by Lord Stanley, who moved that the second reading be postponed till the 12th of May, in order that the question might receive a fuller consideration. Mr. Williams Wynn approved of the bill; and Mr. O’Connell abandoned his own in its favour. Lord John Russell recommended that the bill should be read a second time, thinking that it at least provided some remedy for the evils complained of. On a division the second reading was carried by a majority of two hundred and fourteen against one hundred and sixty. Nothing further was done, however, before Christmas, except that there was much discussion on the subject of election committees.

The house of commons was again occupied with the subject of controverted elections on the 2nd of April. On the motion for the re-committal of Mr. C. Buller’s bill, Sir Robert Peel rose for the purpose of bringing the subject generally before the house, and of submitting to their consideration a proposition of his own. Sir Robert’s scheme was, that the speaker should nominate a committee, which should be called “a general committee for elections,” and which should consist of four or six, or some such limited number. To this committee he would leave the duty of appointing select committees, by whom election petitions were to be tried. These last committees might consist of seven or nine members, and each was to have the aid of an assessor who should be its chairman, and in all respects on an equal footing with the members of the committee. These persons were not to be permanent, but employed as occasion might demand. There was to be no attendance of members at a ballot and the operation of chance was entirely excluded. Mr. O’Connell still thought it would be advisable to take the adjudication of these contests out of the present hands, and to transfer it to the judges. He moved as an amendment, that Mr. Buller’s bill should be referred to a select committee, who might report on the subject at large. Lord Stanley moved that Mr. Buller’s bill be considered that day six months; and proposed that a committee should be appointed to examine the conflicting cases, and to report on a mode of giving uniformity to the law. Mr. Shiel approved of Sir Robert Peel’s plan; but he thought that party spirit would stand in the way of their obtaining a declaratory act, since on some questions the two parties in parliament were systematically opposed to each other. Mr. O’Connell’s proposition was negatived, and Mr. Buller consented to withdraw his measure. On the 10th of May, therefore, Sir Robert Peel moved for leave to bring in his bill, dropping that part of his scheme, however, which established assessors. Leave was given to bring in the bill; but the attorney-general thought that all that was necessary was to repeal the Grenville act. They might then go on making one experiment after another, until they arrived at some plan that would give universal satisfaction.

Before the Christmas recess, the freemen and parliamentary electors’ bill, which had been dropped in the preceding session, had been reintroduced. The two grand objects of this bill were to relieve householders entitled to the elective franchise, by extending the time fixed by the reform bill for payment of rates and taxes; and to remove the stamp-duty payable by freemen on their admission. The former part of the bill met with much opposition; and Mr. T. Duncombe moved an amendment, tending altogether to repeal the rate-paying clause of the reform act. This amendment, however, was rejected, and the original clause carried by a large majority. The third reading of the bill came on on the 19th of February, when it was condemned by Sir Robert Peel as involving a serious infraction of the great principle understood to be settled when the reform bill was passed. The bill was finally passed by the commons, by a majority of one hundred and eighty-nine against one hundred and seventy-two; but it was rejected in the house of lords on the second reading, on the 8th of March. The house of commons passed another bill, conceding tire desired relief to freemen alone; but the session closed before the lords were called upon to take it into consideration.

MOTION FOR THE BALLOT.

On the 15th of February Mr. Grote made his annual motion for the ballot. The debate at this time was expected with considerable interest, because it was generally understood to be a question which was becoming an element of disunion in the camp of the reformers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ward, and supported by Mr. E. L. Bulwer. Mr. Ward, in seconding the motion, intimated that after Lord John Russell’s declaration respecting the ballot, the extension of the suffrage, and the duration of parliaments, the people were anxious to see how far the other members of the administration were prepared to identify their opinions with those of the noble lord. He represented the constituents of Sir John Hobhouse, Mr. Poulett Thomson, Sir Hussey Vivian, and Sir Henry Parnell as especially watching their conduct in this matter, and concluded by expressing his conviction that anything like a government opposition to the measure would “have for its effect the production of a new combination most important to the country and to that house.” Lord John Russell again manfully stated his general objections to the change; and Sir Robert Peel, in a speech of considerable power, attacked the system of secret voting with effect. On a division, the motion was lost by a majority of three hundred and fifteen against one hundred and ninety-eight.

PARLIAMENTARY QUALIFICATION BILL.

During this session a bill was introduced and passed, which had for its object the extension to personal property of the privilege hitherto confined to real property, as regarded a qualification for parliament. By this act, an estate for life, or for the life of another; or a term of years of which thirteen shall be unexpired at the time of election, or personal estate and effects of any description within the United Kingdom, or the interest or dividends of such, may constitute either the whole or part of the sum required to qualify a member. By another clause, every member before he takes his seat is required to deliver to the clerk, while the house is sitting, a paper signed by himself, containing a statement of the real or personal property whereby he makes out his qualification. By the same clause he is also called upon to subscribe a declaration, that to the best of his belief he is duly qualified to be elected a member of the house. To make a false declaration is declared to be a misdeameanour, and the election becomes void if the member sits or votes without complying with the provisions of the acts. This statute, however, does not extend to the members for the universities, to the eldest sons of peers, or to persons qualified to be knight of the shire.

PERSONAL ATTACKS.

On the 6th of March Sir William Molesworth, with a view of bringing the whole colonial administration of the empire before the consideration of the house of commons, moved that an address be presented to her majesty, respectfully expressing the opinion of the house, that in the present critical state of many of her majesty’s foreign possessions, the colonial minister should be a person in whose diligence, activity, and firmness the house and the public may be able to place reliance; and declaring that her majesty’s present secretary of state for the colonies does not enjoy the confidence of the house or the country. The right honourable baronet prefaced his motion by a speech of two hours’ duration. His speech was very moderate, although it might have appeared that he was guided by some acrimonious feeling in selecting Lord Glenelg for attack. Mr. Leader seconded the motion; and Lord Palmerston undertook the defence of the colonial secretary. He would meet the motion by a simple negative. Lord Sandon said that he had expected that the affairs of Canada would have formed the basis of the present motion. Lord Palmerston was right in saying that it should not have been directed against Lord Glenelg alone, but against the entire administration. He could not vote with Sir William Molesworth; nor could he be content with a simple negative of his motion. He considered that the troubles in Canada were attributable to the misconduct of ministers; and under these circumstances he should move an amendment, in the shape of an address to the queen, in which would be laid down his own principles, and those of the party with whom he acted. His lordship’s address expressed the regret of the house at the treasonable movements in Canada, and their determination to aid her in the suppression of the revolt, and the establishment of a sound constitution; but representing also their opinion, that the present state of things in that colony was mainly owing to the want of foresight and energy, and to the ambiguous, dilatory, and irresolute course of her majesty’s ministers. Lord Stanley then addressed the house, and after a speech from Sir Charles Grey the house adjourned; and on the following evening the debate was renewed, many members expressing their opinions on the subject. In the course of his speech Lord John Russell directed some bitter remarks against Lord Stanley, and said that in respect of temper and judgment he was more comfortable now that Lord Glenelg was his colleague than he was when the former nobleman was at the head of the colonial department. His lordship demanded to know whether in the event of the resignation of ministers, there existed means of forming a better administration, or whether the tories could safely appeal to the test of a popular election? Lord John Russell concluded by suggesting to Sir William Molesworth the expediency of withdrawing his motion, in order that the house might divide upon the amendment. The right honourable baronet consented to this; but said that, for his own part, he felt precluded from voting on either side on the amendment of Lord Sandon. On a division ministers had a majority of twenty-nine only; the numbers being, against the amendment, three hundred and sixteen; for it, two hundred and eighty-seven.

REVIVAL OF ANTI-SLAVERY AGITATION, ETC.

At this period anti-slavery agitation again became the order of the day. On the one hand there existed a large class of declaimers and needy orators who were interested in the revival of the subject; and on the other, there was a powerful body of humane people, to whom the contemplation of the sufferings of the negro people had become habitual, and who required little inducement to recur to such an exciting theme. But there was a cause for this display of philanthropy: the slave was still in chains, and was still suffering from the lash of the hard-hearted driver. The legislatures also in the colonies were not free from blame; they acted in many cases with obstinacy and intemperance; and Jamaica especially afforded many instances of systematic violations of the imperial law. The apprentice system, in point of fact, was a complete failure: it produced on the part of the slaves contumacy; and on the part of the masters breaches of the law, cruelty, and violence. From these circumstances there was no difficulty in lighting up a flame in England on the subject. Meetings were held and petitions got up, with a view of hastening the time when the slave should become a man among his fellow-men. The subject of slavery was brought before the house of lords, on the 29th of January, by Lord Brougham, who, after presenting a petition from Leeds, praying the immediate abolition of negro slavery, delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the enormities still committed in the slave-trade. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Glenelg admitted that Lord Brougham’s statements of the horrors of slavery were substantially correct. In his speech his lordship had said, that British officers were induced to allow vessels equipped for the slave-trade to escape, in order to secure the head-money, and to wait at the mouth of rivers till the cargoes had been shipped. Lord Minto, first lord of the admiralty, in reply, said, that he would not assert that no single instance of this nature had occurred; but he could say that none such had come to his knowledge, and that he did not believe a similar case had ever existed. He could assure their lordships that the only complaint he had heard against British officers thus employed, was, that they were too ready to take these vessels, and too little careful of themselves, not attending sufficiently to their own security against prosecutions. Every letter he received from those officers lamented the difficulties in the way of obtaining the means of the capture and conviction of these vessels until the cargo was embarked; and they all pressed for the conclusion of further treaties. If those treaties could be extended to all nations under whose flag the traffic was carrying on, there would be no difficulty in putting it down. The case was not the same with respect to Spain as to Portugal. With the former there was a treaty which enabled us to capture all slavers under her flag; but our cruisers could not capture vessels under Portuguese colours until they had taken in their cargoes. Lord Brougham asked, if a reward according to the tonnage of the vessel captured could not be substituted for head-money? His views were supported by Lords Ellenborough and Ashburton, the latter of whom said strong measures should be taken to compel Portugal to desist from the traffic. Lord Glenelg said, that Lord Palmerston was engaged in negotiating a treaty with that country, with a view of putting a stop to the trade. He thought with Lord Brougham that our interference had aggravated the horrors of slavery; but at the same time he contended that parliament had no alternative but to act as it had done; and that the fear of increasing the evil ought not to have prevented us from taking steps to extirpate the practice. The conversation on this subject here dropped; but it was renewed again on the 20th of February by Lord Brougham, who urged upon the house the propriety of immediately emancipating the negro apprentices. His speech on this occasion gained for him the golden opinions of the good and the wise. He commenced by painting in poetic language the “delicate, calm, and tranquil joy” which pervaded the Antilles on the day when slavery ceased to exist. He continued to show that the predictions of those who had declared that labour would cease when slavery was abolished, had failed. Twice as much sugar was made under the new system; and one planter had said, that with twenty free labourers he could do the work of a hundred slaves. His lordship next proceeded to show that the slave-holders had not kept faith with this country, and that the condition of the negroes, instead of being made better, was in many respects worse than before. They were, he said, the victims of partial tribunals, and of excessive and illegal punishments; and he related the case of eleven females having perished from the punishments inflicted upon them, but whose deaths were, nevertheless, ascribed by a coroner’s jury to “the visitation of God.” At the conclusion of his speech his lordship, after moving that an address be presented to her majesty, beseeching her to take steps for the suppression of the slave-trade, laid these resolutions on the table:—“That the practice of paying head-money to British cruisers should be discontinued. That letters of marque should be issued to private individuals, empowering them to fit out vessels for the capture of slavers. That it was expedient that the period of prædial apprenticeship should cease on the 1st of August, 1838.” The resolutions also further indicated certain regulations for the protection of apprentices in the meantime. Lord Glenelg, in a powerful speech, objected to Lord Brougham’s propositions of issuing letters of marque to privateers, and the discontinuance of head-money. With respect to the condition of the apprentices in the West India colonies, he contended that the change had been more advantageous than Lord Brougham had supposed, although he allowed that abuses and difficulties of a serious nature did exist. Still he did not think that sudden emancipation would be for the advantage of the negroes; and he must, therefore, oppose Lord Brougham’s resolutions. Lord Brougham took the sense of the house on the resolution which regarded immediate emancipation; and on a division it was lost by a majority of thirty-one against seven.

Soon after this the vigilance of Lord Brougham brought to light what appeared to be a new method of establishing a slave-trade. In the colony of British Guiana there had been an old law, which permitted the importation of labourers without restriction. In 1836 a law was passed by the governor and council of policy of the colony, with a view to regulate the relations between the labourers who should come to the colony under articles of indenture, and their employers. On being transmitted to England for approval, the plan was considered on the whole to be an improvement, and therefore it was sanctioned. An order in council was issued in March, 1837, giving assent to the act of the colonial legislature, but with several important alterations, and especially reducing the period of service from seven to three years, and prohibiting the introduction of labourers from Africa, or islands peopled chiefly by the African race. Shortly after these modifications of the law had been promulgated, an application was made for a different regulation, to be extended to individuals from the East Indies, who, it was said, could not be brought into the colony with any profit, unless the term of service was prolonged to five years. This was conceded by Lord Glenelg; and arrangements were made for the deportation of a class of Hindoos, called “Hill Coolies,” or Highland labourers, to British Guiana. This subject was brought forward by Lord Brougham on the 6th of March, who moved two resolutions in condemnation of the order in council of July. In his speech he asserted that twenty-five thousand Africans had been introduced into the Mauritius in defiance of the law; and predicted that they were about to expose to this infernal traffic the entire Asiatic coast. His lordship complained that no precautions had been taken to secure proper ships, provision, or accommodation for the labourers on their voyage. Lord Glenelg contended that Lord Brougham’s alarm was premature; that he had exaggerated the danger, and was urging ministers to present a “barrier to the circulation of voluntary labour.” The Duke of Wellington suggested that arrangements should be made for the superintendence of the embarkation of labourers by responsible persons; that the nature of the bargain made should be fully explained to the labourer; that provision should be made for his return, if he wished it, at the expiration of his period of service; and that persons should be appointed to go with them while on board, and on their landing, to see the due performance of their respective bargains by the masters and the workmen. Lord Melbourne said that Lord Brougham’s ardent imagination rendered him an unsafe guide in such matters; but he intimated that the Duke of Wellington’s suggestion should receive attention. His grace then said that he thought it unadvisable to divide upon Lord Brougham’s motion; and therefore he would move the previous question. On a division the previous question was carried by a large majority; and the original motion being put, was negatived.

The subject of slavery was introduced on the 29th of March in the house of commons, by Sir George Strickland, who moved the immediate abolition of negro apprenticeship. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pease, and supported by Dr. Lushington and Lord Howick. On the other hand, it was opposed by Sir George Grey, Sir Edward Sugden, Lord John Russell, and Mr. W. E. Gladstone; and on a division it was negatived by a majority of two hundred and sixty-nine to two hundred and five. An attempt was subsequently made by Sir Eardley Wilmot to obtain a resolution from the house in favour of immediate abolition. He succeeded, his motion being carried by a majority of ninety-six against ninety-three. Government, however, still expressed aversion to any alteration of the present system; and on the 28th of May Sir George Grey proposed and carried a resolution which virtually rescinded that of Sir Eardley Wilmot, by declaring that, in the opinion of the house, it was not advisable to adopt any proceeding for the purpose of giving effect to the resolution of the 26th of that month. Sir George Grey’s motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and fifty against one hundred and seventy-three.

Although slavery was still allowed to exist, yet two important bills connected with this subject passed the legislature this session. One of these was entitled “An act to amend the act for the abolition of slavery;” and it contained various provisions, giving further protection to the apprentices, and enforcing such regulations of the former act as had been disregarded by the planters. The second bill empowered her majesty in council to make rules for the government of the prisons in the West Indies; to appoint inspectors of prisons; to dismiss or suspend officers; and to determine on the fitness or unfitness of any place to be used for the purposes of penal confinement.

DEBATES ON THE IRISH POOR-LAW BILL—THE BILL CARRIED.

It will be remembered that the Irish poor-law bill had arrived at an advanced stage, last session, in the committee, and that many of its important clauses had been discussed and determined, when the demise of the crown put a stop to its further progress. The subject was renewed on the 1st of December, when the bill was read a first time. It was proposed that the house should go into committee on the 9th of February, on which day Mr. O’Connell moved, as an amendment, that it be committed that day six months. When the bill was last year before the house, he said he had addressed them at considerable length in opposition to it. At the same time he had avowed that he had not moral courage to take the course of direct opposition to the measure, although perfectly convinced of its injurious tendency. Since then he had grown both older and firmer; and he was now determined to take the sense of the house on the committal of the bill. He was opposed to the introduction of poor-laws into Ireland, at least so far as regarded able-bodied persons; it might induce them to abandon their habitual industry and economy, and prevent them from providing for the wants of age and supervening infirmity. Any such plan was calculated to diminish self-reliance, to paralyse industry, to decrease economy, and, above all, to damp and extinguish the kindly and generous feelings of nature. He further objected to the bill, because it taxed the occupiers of lands, and involved many difficulties of apportionment between his landlord and himself: it would be a constant source of litigation. Besides, he contended that the mode in which the poor-law was proposed to be carried into effect, was not calculated to benefit Ireland: and he enlarged on the poverty of the people in general, in order to show that they ought not to be called upon to endure taxation to the amount of another million. Messrs. Shaw, W. S. O’Brien, Lucas, and Redington supported the bill, though they all thought that many of its details were objectionable. Mr. O. Gore supported Mr. O’Connell’s amendment, he objecting to the workhouse system as prejudicial to the best habits and feelings of the Irish. Other members, as Messrs. Barron, Young, and Litton, supported the measure; while others, as Mr. J. Gibson and Sir F. French, opposed it. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy-seven against twenty-five.

The house went into committee on the 12th of February. The third reading of the bill came on on the 30th of April, when Mr. O’Connell again endeavoured to arrest its progress. His opposition, however, was bootless: it passed the house of commons by a majority of two hundred and thirty-four against fifty-nine.

MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE APPROPRIATION CLAUSE—MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR SETTLING THE TITHE QUESTION.

On the 14th of May Sir Thomas Acland moved for the repeal of the appropriation clause. Lord John Russell had previously given notice that he would bring forward his resolutions concerning Irish tithes; and in moving that the speaker should leave the chair, the noble lord said that it had been his original intention to refrain from saying a single word, and to reserve his remarks to the time when the house should go into committee. It had pleased the gentlemen opposite, however, to give notice that they meant to interpose another question in order to raise a debate, and produce a division, before allowing the resolutions to be considered in committee. He should consider the proposition made by Sir Thomas Acland in two points of view; with reference to its object of producing discord and bitterness of feeling in the house, and how far such a course was conformable to the professions made by gentlemen opposite with respect to the Irish church. After descanting at considerable length on the subject of the alliance of the church and state generally, and the small influence which the Irish church exercised over the people, the noble lord went on to unfold his scheme. The existing tithe-composition, he said, would be converted into a rent-charge at the rate of £70 for every £100; and he proposed that the rent-charge should, with a saving of existing interests, be redeemed by the government at the rate of sixteen years’ purchase on the full sum of £100. The money received in redemption of the rent-charge he proposed should be invested in land, or in such other way as the ecclesiastical commissioners should advise; and the rent-charges themselves, when purchased, should go towards a fund, from which £160,000 should be paid yearly to the constabulary force of Ireland; £20,000 to the Dublin police; £70,000 to the expense of criminal informations; and £100,000 for the purposes of education, instead of the £50,000 now voted annually for that purpose; any surplus was to be applied to charitable purposes. After developing his plan, Lord John Russell descanted on the obstinacy and exorbitance of the clergy, and then attacked Sir T. Acland’s motion. He commenced this part of his speech by quoting the Duke of Wellington’s declared desire to see the Irish questions brought to a settlement, contending that the present motion was not in accordance with that declaration. With respect to the principle of the appropriation resolutions, his opinion was unaltered: it was a wise and just principle, and he could not consent to its reversal: it would imply a stigma upon ministers which he could not endure. Sir Thomas Acland, however, rose to move that the resolutions of the 7th and 8th of April, 1835, should be read; and after addressing the house at considerable length, he further moved that they should be rescinded. The motion was seconded by Sir Eardley Wilmot. After a long speech from Lord Stanley, and a few words from Lord Morpeth in defence of government, the house was adjourned till the following day, when Mr. Litton renewed the discussion by delivering a speech in favour of Sir T. Acland’s amendment. Messrs. Young, Laseelles, Bennett, and Lord Sandon also supported it; while Messrs. Redington and Townley opposed it. Mr. O’Connell remarked that the real question before the house was, how should Ireland be governed? This was the question that had been under discussion for seven hundred years. Should Ireland, he asked, be governed by a section? A loud shout interrupted the speaker, and in the midst of continued uproar, he continued thus:—“I thank you for that shriek. Many a shout of insolent domination, despicable and contemptible as it is, have I heard against my country.”—[Here the speaker interfered]—“Let them shout; it is a senseless yell—the spirit of a party. Ireland will hear their shrieks. They may want us again. What would Waterloo have been if we had not been there? I ask not that question for the renowned commander-in-chief, who is himself an Irishman, but for the hardy soldiery of Ireland, who fought the battle for him. I say again, that is the question.” In conclusion, Mr. O’Connell admitted that the ministerial plan did not go far enough, but he was ready to accede to it for the sake of an amicable arrangement. Sir Robert Peel and other members addressed the house, a discussion ensued, when Sir Thomas Acland’s motion was lost by a majority of three hundred and seventeen against two hundred and ninety-eight. On the following day Lord John Russell gave the house distinctly to understand that the tithe measure would solely consist of a proposition to the effect that the composition then existing should be converted into a rent-charge.

COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS UPON THE IRISH MUNICIPAL BILL—THE BILL REJECTED, ETC.

On the 29th of May Lord John Russell moved that the house should go into committee on the Irish municipal corporation bill. Sir Robert Peel then rose and stated his views and intentions with respect to the two great Irish questions.