Chapter XLIX: {victoria. 1838—1839} (2)

The consideration of the subject was renewed on the 1st of June, when, the house being in committee, Mr. Shaw moved that schedules A and B should be consolidated, so that there should be but two schedules instead of three; the first to contain the towns to which corporations were to be given with an uniform ten-pound franchise; and the second to contain those in which the majority of the ten-pound householders might, according to their option, be incorporated. Mr. Shaw further proposed that Sir Robert Peel’s mode of estimating the qualification of electors should be adopted. Lord John Russell consented to that part of the proposition which regarded the distribution of towns to be incorporated, but at the same time intimated that government considered an uniform ten-pound franchise too high a qualification. On this point, indeed, the two parties were at issue, for Lord John Russell proposed a five-pound assessment as the qualification, while Sir Robert Peel advocated the ten-pound assessment. On the 11th of June Sir Robert moved to substitute the latter for the former sum; but on a division it was negatived by a majority of two hundred and eighty-six against two hundred and sixty-six. The bill came on for the third reading on the 25th of June, when Lord Francis Egerton moved that it should be read that day three months; but on a division the bill passed by a majority of one hundred and sixty-nine against one hundred and thirty-four.

The bill came under deliberation in the house of lords on the 12th of July, and it was read a third time on the 27th of the same month. The lords, however, had, on the motion of Lord Lyndhurst, substituted the ten-pound for the five-pound franchise, and had also made further alterations in the bill at the instigation of the same noble lord. When the bill in its amended shape came under the consideration of the house of commons on the 2nd of August, Lord John Russell entered into a detailed examination of these amendments. In order to settle the question of the franchise, he proposed that a rated house of eight pounds rent should confer it; and he carried this by a majority of one hundred and sixty-nine against one hundred and fifty-four. A variety of alterations were then introduced into the other amendments of the lords, and the bill was once more sent up to that house. A conference took place, but with no effect, and the matter ended by Lord John Russell moving in the house of commons that “the lords’ amendments should be further considered that day three months.” The bill, therefore, was again laid aside, and that for the most part from a difference of a pound or two in the qualification. The great principle of granting popular corporations to the Irish towns was conceded by the Conservatives; but they would not overlook the trifling difference contested by them and their opponents in the qualification.

THE CORONATION.

The coronation of Queen Victoria took place on the 28th of June. The principal novel feature of this august ceremony consisted in the substitution of a procession through the streets of London for the banquet in Westminster-hall. The result of this change justified the departure from an ancient usage. The people of all ages, sexes, conditions, professions, arts, and trades assembled on that day to greet their youthful sovereign. The ceremony was conducted with great harmony: happiness and cheerful good humour prevailed among the enormous multitude which thronged the streets; and courtesy and self-restraint were everywhere conspicuous. The coronation was succeeded by a series of fetes and banquets, and many weeks elapsed before the metropolis had ceased to hold festivals in its remembrance. In a word, the utmost enthusiasm for the youthful sovereign prevailed on every hand, and gave promise of a happy and glorious reign.

It was stated in the house of commons shortly after the coronation that the expenses incurred for the coronation of George IV. were £243,000, and that the expenses incurred for that of his successor did not exceed £50,000. On the present occasion the charges amounted to about £70,000, and the chancellor of the exchequer, in explaining the cause of this excess, said, that it was in no respect occasioned by any portion of the ceremony as regarded the sovereign, but for enabling the people to participate in the national festivity. The public, he continued, had voluntarily paid for seats commanding a view of the procession not less than £200,000; and four hundred thousand persons had visited London for the purpose of witnessing the ceremony. He added:—“Never was there given to a sovereign, or to a country, a more exalted proof of good conduct and discretion, than was afforded by the assembled multitude on this occasion.”

DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

On the 2nd of July the house of commons proceeded to take Lord John Russell’s tithe resolutions into consideration. On the motion for going into committee, Mr. Ward condemned ministers for abandoning the appropriation principle, and moved a series of resolutions for the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Irish church to the moral and religious education of all classes. Mr. Hawes seconded and Mr. Hume supported the motion. Mr. O’Connell, however, opposed it, contending that it led to a deception and delusion: it offered to the Irish people something as the purchase-money of a tithe bill, which bill they had refused unanimously to take. Their determination was not to pay tithe; and he required that provision should be made for the established church of Ireland out of the consolidated fund, and that the tithe fund should be applied to the maintenance of peace in the country. By converting tithes into a rent-charge, they would turn landlords into tithe proprietors; and would further throw many landlords into the ranks of White-boys. Mr. Harvey said that three years ago he was denounced by Mr. O’Connell for not supporting the motion which his learned friend was now opposing. On a division Mr. Ward’s motion was rejected by two hundred and seventy against forty-six. On the house going into committee, Mr. Shaw moved, as an amendment, that twenty-five instead of thirty per cent, should be substituted. This amendment was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-eight against one hundred and sixty-seven.

In a preceding year one million sterling had been voted by parliament for the relief of tithe-owners who had been unable to pay their dues; and out of this sum they had by this time actually received £640,000. At the time of the grant it was intended that the advances should be repaid as soon as the tenants should pay up their arrears. That event was not likely to happen; for, since the grant had been made, a new arrear of tithes had accrued. It was now generally agreed that repayment of the money advanced should not be required; but it became a question how far the fresh arrears were to be settled. Sir Robert Peel suggested that a commission should be appointed to ascertain the entire amount of the tithe, and the nature of each particular case; and that in proportion to that amount, and with due regard to individual circumstances, the sum remaining of the million not yet advanced should be distributed among the respective tithe-owners in purchase of their interests. According to his plan, if a landlord owned tithe, he was not to be included in the proposition; but where the debtors were occupying tenants, there tithe-owners were to have the option of enforcing their claims, or of accepting their proportion of the fund, and exonerating their debtors: government was also to have the right of proceeding against the tenant at their option. This proposition was favourably received; and, on July 16th, Lord John Russell, when the house resumed the consideration of the bill in committee, adopted it with some slight modifications. On the 26th of July the bill came on for the third reading. Mr. D. Browne moved, that the bill be read that day six months; in doing which he contended for a total abolition of tithes. On a division the bill was carried by a majority of one hundred and forty-eight against thirty; and thus terminated the contests concerning “the appropriation clause.” The adoption of it had assisted the Whigs in their return to power; and the sacrifice of it enabled them to maintain office.

Lord Melbourne brought the Irish tithe-bill before the house of lords on the 3rd of August. After descanting on the million loan and the arrears, his lordship remarked that it was obvious, unless they closed up all questions with reference to arrears, they would not be giving the measure fair play. This bill directed the lord lieutenant to remit to the clergy the instalments due from them in respect of the loan; and the residue of the million was to be applied in satisfaction of the arrears, according to the claims of the spiritual tithe-owners, which had been accruing during the last four years. Nothing was said of the “appropriation clause” by his lordship: on which Lord Brougham remarked:—“I had not looked to see the day when appropriation should be given to the winds, as if the thing had never been talked of—as if it never had been the means of seating one ministry and unseating another.”

The bill was read a third time on the 9th of August, Lord Clancarty alone raising a dissentient voice.

THE IRISH POOR-LAW BILL CARRIED IN THE LORDS.

On the 21st of May Lord Melbourne moved the second reading of the Irish poor-law bill in the lords. The motion was opposed by Earl Fitzwilliam, who said that he was opposed to the whole principle of poor-laws. As for the present bill, he said, it could never be carried into effect; it was not an Irish bill, nor was it a bill desired either by the landed interests, the middling gentry, or the poorest classes of Ireland. The Marquis of Londonderry also opposed the bill; while the Duke of Wellington recommended their lordships to give it a second reading, with a view of amending it in committee. Lord Lyndhurst, having adverted to the unpopularity of the bill in Ireland, and cautioned their lordships against setting themselves up as better judges than the Irish people themselves of what was best calculated to promote the interests of that nation, said he should not object to a trial of the bill, provided he thought that they would, in the event of failure, return to their original situation. His lordship then stated his various objections to the proposed bill; but, in conclusion, intimated his intention of voting for the second reading, in the hope that it might be brought into a better state in committee. The Marquis of Clanricarde, Lord Brougham, and the Marquis of Westmeath opposed the bill; and Lord Radnor and the Earl of Devon supported it. On a division the second reading was carried by a majority of one hundred and forty-nine against twenty. In committee, Earl Fitzwilliam moved an am end-mend to the forty-first clause, by which he limited the relief under the bill to age, bodily infirmity, &c.; and he was supported by Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci, who contended that the operations of the bill would be mischievous; but it was not carried. On the 31st the latter noble lord moved another amendment, empowering the guardians to relieve in poor-houses “all destitute persons who are either incurably lame, or blind, or sick, or labouring under permanent bodily infirmity;” also all orphan children left in a state of destitution. Ministers, however, succeeded in carrying the original clause of the bill by a majority of one hundred and seven to forty-one. Subsequently some amendments were made in the minor details of the bill, and it was read a third time on the 9th of July, and carried by a majority of ninety-three against thirty-one. The momentous experiment, therefore, of introducing a poor-law into a country where the people were everywhere opposed to it was to be tried.

PROJECTED FORMATION OF A COLONY IN NEW ZEALAND, ETC.

At this period an association had been formed for the purpose of colonizing New Zealand, under certain grants of territory which had been obtained from the native authorities. During this session an application for a parliamentary sanction to the undertaking was made, and Mr. F. Baring, on the 23rd of June, moved the second reading of a bill to establish the said colony. Sir George Grey opposed the motion. The bill was also opposed by Sir Walter James, Lord Sandon, and Messrs. Goulbourn and Pease, while Messrs. Hutt and P. Howard pointed out the advantages which would accrue to Great Britain from the measure. The bill was rejected by a majority of ninety-two against thirty-two.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ETC.

The navy estimates were presented to the house of commons on the 5th of March, when Mr. C. Wood moved a resolution to the effect, that there be employed in the fleet for the next thirteen lunar months, ending on the 31st of March, 1839, 33,665 men including 2,000 boys and 9,000 marines. After some opposition, this motion was agreed to; as was another, made by Lord Howick, on the 12th of the same month, to the effect that 89,305 men should be raised for her majesty’s land-forces. The ordnance estimates were moved by Sir Hussey Vivian on the 27th of April, and these, likewise, were granted. The chancellor of the exchequer presented his financial statement on the 18th of May, when it appeared that the past year had been one of increased expenditure and diminished receipt. The estimate of revenue, he said, had amounted to £47,240,000, while the actual income did not exceed £46,090,000. The estimate of expenditure had been £47,873,000, and the actual expenditure £47,519,000; so that there existed a deficiency of £1,428,000. But, continued Mr. Rice, if the house would compare the income and expenditure of the two years 1836 and 1837, they would find a surplus of income; and he showed that, taking these two years together, and comparing the anticipation with the actual results, there was no deficiency. The right honourable gentleman proceeded to say that he calculated the income of the next year would be £47,271,803, and the expenditure £47,479,000. Here, also, would be a deficiency; and the question arose, how was this deficiency to be met? There was no ground for considering it permanent; and he should therefore propose to take the course adopted by parliament on former similar occasions. In 1827 Mr. Canning found himself with a deficiency of £2,900,000, and he met it by a resort to a corresponding issue of exchequer-bills. Mr. Spring Rice intimated that he should follow the same course, and should ask for a vote of credit to the extent of a few hundred thousand pounds only.

MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE CORN-LAWS.

On the 15th of March Mr. Villiers moved for a committee of the whole house to consider the act of 9 George IV. c. 60, relating to the importation of corn. In his speech he remarked that the purpose and principle of the corn-laws were protection to the landed interest. It was alleged that the British farmers could not compete with the foreign grower without protection. He considered this principle indefinite and unjust. The motion was seconded by Sir William Molesworth, who drew a gloomy picture of the operation of the corn-laws. Through them, he said, there was an excess of farmers without farm, shopkeepers without customers, lawyers without briefs, clergymen without cure of souls, doctors without patients, sailors and soldiers without employment; besides shoals of architects, painters, surveyors, tutors, clerks, and others. All these classes were uneasy, and the victims of competition. The corn-laws had further the effect of producing great immorality: people either could not marry, or were obliged to many late in life, and consequently there was an excess of unmarried women! Hence immorality prevailed, and every foreigner who visited the land was shocked at the exhibition of profligacy in the streets. Only a few members supported the motion, which was consequently lost.

On a subsequent evening Colonel Seale proposed that foreign corn in this country should, under certain restrictions, be permitted to be ground while in bond, and exported, security being given for its exportation. The object of this measure was to enable merchants trading to foreign countries, and shipowners, to lay in their supplies in the ports of the United Kingdom, instead of being compelled to obtain them, as at present, from the Baltic. The Marquis of Chandos contended that this measure would repeal the corn-laws: extensive frauds would take place, and a great alteration ensue in the price of corn. On the other hand, Messrs. Warburton and Poulett Thomson argued that the agricultural interest would not suffer from it in the least degree. The latter said that no fraud could take place, and he entered into details to show that the preservation of the whole revenue of the country depended upon the security afforded by the bonded warehouses. Corn could not be smuggled out of them more easily than sugar and tobacco, &c., on which much higher duties were payable. After hearing these statements of Mr. Thomson, several members intimated their disposition to make a concession upon so immaterial a point. Colonel Seale’s motion was carried by a majority of one hundred and twenty-seven against ninety-two, but the bill was, notwithstanding, thrown out on the second reading, by a majority of two hundred and twenty against one hundred and fifty.

VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LAW.

An important alteration in the law took place this session, in the abolition of imprisonment for debt on mesne process. Public attention had been for some time directed to this subject; and during last session a bill passed the house of commons with reference to it, but at too late a period to admit of its discussion in the upper house. On the 5th of December the lord-chancellor brought the subject before the lords, by moving the second reading of a similar bill. Many of the details of the bill, however, were thought to be so defective, that it was referred to the consideration of a select committee. The lord-chancellor again presented his bill, as altered and amended by the committee, on the 12th of June. In his exposition of the measure, his lordship stated that it would empower creditors to get possession of various descriptions of property, which were at present exempt from execution. Thus the bill would authorize the sheriff to seize cash, bank-notes, and bills of exchange; and, under the authority of a judge’s order, and with certain restrictions, stock in the public funds would be available to the creditor. These and similar provisions were framed for the purpose of doing justice to the creditor, by enabling him, if possible, to obtain payment out of his debtor’s property. Having effected this object it seemed but right to abolish imprisonment on mesne process. Still, to prevent fraud, it was necessary to secure to the creditor the right of seizing the debtor’s person in certain cases. The bill, moreover, would authorize a judge, on the creditor’s application, to issue a warrant to restrain a fraudulent debtor from leaving the country before he had surrendered his property. Lords Brougham and Abingdon commended the measure as far as it went; but they still thought it incomplete. The bill was read a third time and passed; and after some minor alterations had been introduced in it by the commons, it finally became law. Another useful act passed during this session was one which facilitated the recovery of possession of tenements after the determination of the tenancy. This bill empowered any two justices at petty-sessions, in certain cases, and after proof given of the determination of the tenancy, and of the refusal of the tenant to render possession, to issue their warrant to the peace-officers of the place, directing them to enter, by force, if needful, upon the premises unlawfully held over, and to give possession of the same to the landlord or to his agent; such entry to be made not less than twenty, and not more than thirty days from the date of the warrant. The provisions of this bill, however, are confined to premises held at will, or for less than a term of seven years, and which are let for less than £20 per annum, without the reservation of a fine.

In the course of this session, a bill for securing to authors, in certain cases, the benefit of international copyright passed the legislature, and which enabled her majesty in council to direct that the authors of books published abroad shall have a copyright here, provided there be a reciprocal protection in favour of this country in the state in which such publications first make their appearance.

A SELECT COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO THE OPERATION OF THE POOR-LAWS.

During the past and the present year the New Poor-law was exposed to a severe trial. Distress, from a severe winter and the high price of corn, abounded on every hand, while in various parts of the country local and temporary causes operated unfavourably to the labourer. Under these circumstances, the New Poor-law encountered great opposition, and this appeared to be becoming progressively formidable. In the northern parts of the country, indeed, Tories, Whigs, and Radicals alike arrayed themselves against it, all agreeing to seek its entire abolition. The subject had been introduced into the commons as early as the 27th of November of the past year, when Lord John Russell moved for a select committee to inquire into the operation of the New Poor-law. This afforded, however, but little satisfaction to the opponents of the measure; and on the 20th of February Mr. Fielden moved for a repeal of the act itself. He was seconded by Mr. Wakley; and, in the course of the evening, a discussion ensued, in which many members took part. Those who spoke generally concurred in the impolicy of taking any steps in the question until the committee should have made its report. Sir Robert Peel bore testimony to the merits of the bill; remarking that, considering the magnitude of the experiment, which had been but four years under trial, it was as satisfactory as any man could expect. On a division, the motion was rejected by a majority of three hundred and nine against seventeen.

The commissioners made their report on the 4th of August. It had been proposed to authorize the guardians to relieve the families of labourers, by taking one or more of their children into the workhouse. The report stated, “that in the practical application of this exception, it would be difficult to avoid the establishment of a system similar in principle to the scale system; i. e. a regular allowance, in addition to the labourer’s earnings, depending on the number of his children and the rate of wages.” It had further been proposed to obviate the hardship of obliging a man to part with his cottage and furniture, and take up his abode, with his family, in the workhouse, by admitting the head of the family only into that establishment, and leaving his family at home. The report stated an objection to this proposal thus:—“The small degree of inconvenience sustained by the labourer by a temporary sojourn in the workhouse, whilst his wife and family remain at home, ceases altogether to have the effect upon the employer which is produced by the strict workhouse system; namely, the creating a great reluctance, on his part, to lose temporarily the services of the labourer, lest he should find it impossible to regain them; and a desire so to arrange the work of his farm, as to afford employment, during the unfavourable part of the season, to those upon whose assistance he must rely for the necessary services during the more active periods of the year.” The report proceeded to notice other particulars of the system, as the migration of families from the southern to the northern counties; and the emigration of others to the Australian colonies. It remarked, that the most important and characteristic circumstance of the last twelve months had been the extreme severity of a long winter, and the continuance of the interruption to manufacturing industry which had commenced in 1836. From this circumstance the guardians of various unions had been induced to give out-door relief to able-bodied male paupers, but the commissioners were of opinion that, with few exceptions, it might have been safely withheld.

COMBINATIONS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.

For some years combinations of workmen for the purpose of regulating the rate of wages, and other matters connected with the employment of labour, had been permitted by law to exist. At this time, however, these confederacies had become formidable. “Strikes” were constantly recurring, so that the masters lay at the mercy of the operatives. Thus at Ashton fifty-two mills and thirty thousand persons were thrown out of work, by the “strike” of three thousand “coarse spinners,” who could clear at the time about thirty shillings per week; and at Manchester one thousand “fine spinners” struck work, because the masters would not pay them more than thirty-five shillings per week. At Glasgow, where the cotton-spinners had been long noted for the violent and arbitrary proceedings of their confederacy, five individuals connected with their body were taken up, charged with murder, attempts at arson, and other grave offences of a similar character. On their trial, the evidence disclosed some revolting details of the practices and formidable organization of the cotton-spinners’ union of Glasgow; but the jury found the prisoners guilty of the minor charges only, and they were transported for seven years. There was much in these judicial proceedings that, in the opinion of Lord Brougham and Mr. Wakley, required correction, and accordingly they brought the subject under the consideration of parliament, each in their respective spheres.

The subject was introduced by Mr. Wakley in the house of commons, by moving for a select committee to inquire into the constitution, practices, and effects of the association of operative cotton-spinners in Glasgow and its neighbourhood. Mr. O’Connell moved, by way of amendment, for a select committee to inquire into trades’ unions and combinations generally, in the United Kingdom. He remarked that there was no tyranny equal to that which was exercised by the trades’ unionists in Dublin. He had in vain wished to convince those people of the wickedness and impolicy of their proceedings. Hour after hour had he had interviews with the deputation from the various trades, and had seldom met with men of more ability, information, or skill, in putting forward their own views. He had also challenged discussion, and two assemblies had been held for that purpose; but the workmen had concerted interruption, and they could not proceed in the business of the day. He could not be heard, and they expressed their determination to persist in their system of outrage. Mr. O’Connell proceeded to detail some of the more prominent regulations of the combination. One of their rules was to limit the number of apprentices; another prescribed a minimum rate of wages, so that the best workmen received no more than the worst; and by a third the masters were deprived of all freedom in their power of selecting workmen. The honourable gentleman then proceeded to relate some instances of the prejudicial effects of combination on the manufacturing industry of the country; and he concluded by adverting to the murders and outrages committed by stipendiary assassins acting under the authority of the unions, and by asserting that he had no wish to re-enact the old combination laws. Some combinations were even meritorious: his aim would be to separate unions of this kind from those of a pernicious character. The chancellor of the exchequer paid some just compliments to Mr. O’Connell for the course he had pursued with respect to this subject, and said that he proposed a second amendment, which did not materially differ from that of the member for Dublin. He moved for a select committee to inquire into the operation of the 6th of George IV., and into the general constitution of trades’ unions, and also the combinations of workmen and masters in the United Kingdom. Mr. Wakley expressed himself satisfied to leave the question in the hands of her majesty’s ministers, and the chancellor of the exchequer’s motion was agreed to without a division.

JOHN THOM. ALIAS SIR WILLIAM COURTENAY.

A few years back an individual of the name of John Nicholls Thorn left his home in Cornwall, and went into the county of Kent. Here he exchanged his name for the more euphonious one of Sir William Courtenay, Knight of Malta, and he commenced a practice of parading his naturally commanding person before the admiring people, clad in rich costumes, and pouring forth streams of exciting and persuasive eloquence. Attracted by his romantic appearance, the populace flocked round him with the wildest enthusiasm; and even the superior classes of society, furnished him with partizans. In 1833 he became a candidate for the representation of the city of Canterbury, and he succeeded so far as to poll nine hundred and fifty votes. Not long after, however, he was found to be implicated in a transaction which resulted in his conviction for perjury, and he was sentenced to six years’ transportation. Decided symptoms of insanity having exhibited themselves, instead of being sent on board the hulks, in conformity with the act 9th George IV., he was removed from Maidstone gaol to the county lunatic asylum. He remained here four years, and at the expiration of that period, Lord John Russell, in virtue of a power conferred on him as secretary of state by the same act, delivered him up to his friends upon their engaging to take care of him. His friends ill discharged their duty; for in 1838 John Thom reappeared in Kent, and this time under a higher title than that of baronet: he claimed to be, and the people acknowledged his pretensions as, another Messiah. The delusion led to the “Canterbury riots,” in which a constable was shot by Thom himself, and Lieutenant Bennet was killed by some of his enthusiastic followers. Thom on his trial was proved to be of unsound mind; and several of his followers were sentenced to be transported, some for life, and others for longer or shorter periods of time, according to the parts they had acted in the tragical scene.

COMMITTEE ON CHURCH LANDS.

It has been seen in a former page that a committee had been appointed to ascertain the probable amount of any increased value which might be obtained by an improved management of church property. On the 3rd of May Lord John Russell proposed the reappointment of this committee. He estimated the revenue of the church of England at £3,439,767, and he calculated this income would admit of considerable increase. With respect to the disposal of such additional revenue, when obtained, his lordship said that both himself and colleagues held it as a fixed principle that it ought to be devoted to a purpose clearly and intimately connected with the church. Many honourable members were of opinion that such a fund should be applied to the education of the people: government would prefer to dedicate it to the repairs of the fabric of the church itself. His lordship then entered into details to show that the present system of managing church property was improvident and unsatisfactory; and that the funds of the church were often disposed of in a way contrary to their original purposes, and not desirable for the spiritual interests of the country. By proper arrangements he expected that an annual surplus of £300,000 might be secured. The motion was opposed by Mr. Liddell, who, in moving a direct negative to it, observed that government had been stimulated to stir this “mischievous question, and unsettle men’s minds and properties by the clamour of persons hostile to the church.” The church of Durham, he said, was the great object of their appetency. It certainly had rich possessions, but then its charities were in proportion. It had, moreover, crying wants: many of its cures were underpaid, and many new churches were requisite, for which there were no adequate means of endowment. The honourable gentleman concluded by saying, that should the motion for a committee be carried, he would further move the addition to it of the following words:—“with a view of applying such amount to the gradual diminution of the evils which flow from the deficiency in the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence by ministers of the established church.” The original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy-seven against two hundred and forty-one; and Mr. Liddell’s second amendment was lost by a majority of two hundred and sixty-five against two hundred and fifty-four.

ACT FOR ABOLISHING PLURALITIES, ETC.

During this session an act was passed for “abridging pluralities,” and for making better provision for the residence of the clergy. This bill enacts that no person holding more benefices than one shall accept and hold any cathedral preferment or other benefice; and that no person holding preferment in one cathedral shall hold any in another, with certain exceptions in favour of archdeacons. The bill further enacts that two benefices are not to be enjoyed together, unless within ten miles of each other, nor if the population of the one exceeds three thousand, or the joint revenue £1,000, unless the yearly value of the one fall short of £150, while the population exceeds two thousand persons; in which case the bishop of the diocese may authorize the two to be held jointly, though at the same time it was made necessary to obtain a dispensation from the Archbishop of Canterbury. By another clause of the bill any spiritual person in the possession of preferment is prohibited from farming more than eighty acres of land without the consent of his diocesan, and from engaging in any trade, unless in cases where the number of partners exceed six, or where the share in a business may devolve upon the individual by operation of law; but in no case may such person carry on or manage trade personally. The bill finally empowers the bishops to grant dispensations to their clergy from residing in the parsonage-houses when unfit to be occupied, provided that the residence selected be within a certain distance of the cure, and further enumerates a variety of other instances in which the bishops may grant licences for non-residence.

During this session also, in consequence of a recent decision in the court of exchequer, that it was unlawful for a clergyman to be a member of a joint-stock company, an act was passed, altering the law on that head. In 1817, an act had been passed prohibiting all spiritual persons from engaging in any trade for gain or profit, and imposing a penalty upon transgressors of the law. It also declared the acts of any partnership into which such spiritual person had been introduced to be null and void.

On the 22nd of February the Earl of Ripon announced to the house of lords that the ecclesiastical commissioners had resolved to recommend the continuance of the bishopric of Sodor and Man as a separate see, and not to unite it with the diocese of Carlisle, as had been proposed. During this session, therefore, a bill was passed for continuing the see upon its original footing.

THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT.

On the 1st of December Lord Brougham brought the subject of national education under the consideration of the house of lords. His lordship’s plan was disclosed in two bills, corresponding with that which he had brought forward in the preceding session, and which were only separated for the sake of convenience. The measure of Lord Brougham seems to have been conceived in an enlightened spirit, and its outline exhibits many excellent features; but it was clear that there would be great difficulty in carrying out its details. The bill was generally approved of, and was read a first time, but it did not come again under the consideration of parliament during this session.

THE QUESTION OF CANADA RENEWED.

While parliament was sitting, Lord Durham sailed for his seat of government in Canada; and news arrived of his first acts in that province. Before his lordship had sailed, however, attacks were made upon him by the opposition, although they had exercised so much forbearance towards him at the outset of his mission.

The main attack on Lord Durham was opened in the house of lords on the 30th of July. Of the many important matters which Lord Durham found on his arrival in Canada unsettled, the disposal of the state prisoners was “by far the most delicate and dangerous.” This difficulty was increased by the restrictions which the home-government had thought it expedient to impose upon the governor-in-chief. These restrictions were contained in a letter written by Lord Glenelg, and were to this effect:—“From the very commencement of the late disturbances it has been, as your lordship is aware, the earnest desire of the government, that the utmost lenity compatible with the public safety should be exercised towards the insurgents. This is a principle inculcated in my various despatches to the authorities of Lower and Upper Canada, and it is a principle supported by considerations, not only of humanity, which cannot be in such cases admitted as the exclusive test of right conduct, but also of true policy, in reference to the well-being of the Canadas. You will, I am persuaded, enter into the views of the government on this subject; and in order to enable you to act with promptitude in this respect, you are relieved from the restrictions by which your predecessors were prevented, in case of treason, from giving an absolute pardon, or granting more than a respite, till the royal pleasure should be known. The power thus entrusted to you, of granting an amnesty or pardon in all cases, should, in the opinion of her majesty’s government, be exercised largely, but not entirely without exception. Independently of persons committed on charges of murder, to whose cases I have referred in my despatch of the 19th of March to Sir J. Colborne, as exceptions to the class of cases fit to be included in an amnesty, there must probably among the prisoners be some flagrant and prominent cases of delinquency, which it would not be just or advisable to comprehend in the general lenity. These cases it will be for you to select, in order that they may be brought to trial. In the constitution of the tribunals before which these prisoners are to be arraigned, and in the conduct of these trials, her majesty’s government are, after full deliberations, satisfied that there should be no further deviation from the established mode of legal procedure, than was sanctioned in my despatch to Sir J. Colborne. You will, therefore, bring them to trial in the usual manner before the courts of justice, as at present constituted for the trial of criminal offences. By the verdict of the ordinary juries, the fate of the prisoners must be decided.... Except in cases of murder, capital punishments should be avoided.” In dealing with this difficult subject Lord Durham availed himself of the assistance of his special council, the members of which were Vice-admiral Sir Charles Paget, Major-general Sir James Macdonnell, Colonel Couper, the governor’s military secretary, and principal aide-de-camp, Colonel Grey, and Mr. Charles Buller. The council met on the 18th of June; but it was not for the purposes of consultation that Lord Durham convened his board, for on the very day on which they were summoned to meet, appeared the celebrated ordinance, by which Lord Brougham not only accomplished his fall, but contrived that all the odium of the transaction should attach to the ministers themselves The nature of this ordinance will be clearly seen in the following debates which took place in both houses of parliament.

On the day before mentioned (30th July), when the attack was opened on Lord Durham in the upper house, Lord Brougham called the attention of the peers to the ordinance which had been passed by the noble governor of Canada, asserting that if carried into effect it would involve the crime of murder, the whole proceeding being at variance with law. Seven days after, Lord Brougham renewed the attack. No power, he said, to inflict pains and penalties upon individuals who had not been brought to trial, which that ordinance usurped, was conferred upon Lord Durham. He might make general laws for the good government of the colony, but subject to an exception which restrained him from altering any act of the British parliament. The ordinance in question contravened the provisions of the act 7th William III. “for the trial of treasonable offences;” and if Lord Durham had the power of dispensing with that act, he might condemn in every case as traitors men against whom no witnesses had been examined, and into whose alleged offences no inquiry had been made. Lord Glenelg remarked that Lord Durham had been placed in a situation of extreme difficulty: he had been solicited for extreme punishments on the one hand, and for a complete amnesty on the other; he had adopted a middle course, and when his decision was announced, it gave general satisfaction. Lord Brougham replied, that the noble earl might have accomplished all he was desirous of doing without a breach of the law. If he had said to parties accused or suspected, “I won’t bring you to trial, if you conduct yourselves properly,” he would have acted in a legal manner; but instead of doing this, he said, “I shall send you to Bermuda; and if you leave that island, I declare you guilty of high-treason.” Lord Melbourne deprecated such rigid criticism. He owned that the clause in the ordinance which related to Bermuda was an error on the part of Lord Durham, but he declared his belief that the whole of the remainder was perfectly legal, and warranted by the powers which parliament had committed to the noble governor of Canada. On the other hand Lord Ellenborough contended that all the penal provisions of the ordinance were illegal, and that the whole transaction was alien from the spirit of British jurisprudence. The Duke of Wellington said that he did not approve of the constant attacks on Lord Durham; but he really thought that steps should be taken to set the government of Canada right on proceedings which appeared to be illegal. Lord Brougham followed up the course he had taken on the following night by introducing a bill “for declaring the true intent and meaning of an act passed in the present session of parliament, intituled ‘An act to make temporary provisions for the government of Lower Canada,’ and for indemnifying those who have issued or acted under a certain ordinance made under colour of the said act.” This bill was read a first time in silence, but on the second reading on the 9th of August, Lord Brougham, by way of preface, propounded certain “canons of policy” by which the administration of the government of Lower Canada, during the suspension of the constitution ought, in his opinion, to have been directed. The bill introduced by Lord Brougham was so loosely framed that it afforded Lord Glenelg fair occasion for criticism. He availed himself of this opportunity of encountering his adversary with some effect. In conclusion, Lord Glenelg observed that the bill before the house was not a mere declaratory act, but a new law restricting the powers which the act of that session had already conferred upon the governor of Canada. It would be inexpedient and extraordinary, if, having invested Lord Durham with plenary authority, they were suddenly to abridge the powers which he had been led to suppose he possessed. A warm and acrimonious debate was maintained by the Earl of Ripon, the Duke of Wellington, and other opposition peers on the one hand, and Lord Melbourne and the lord chancellor on the other. The two ex-chancellors made themselves very remarkable on this occasion, Lord Brougham manifesting the utmost excitement, and the most bitter personal hostility to Lord Durham, to whose instrumentality he attributed his being overlooked by Lord Melbourne in his cabinet arrangements. Lord Lyndhurst did the excellent qualities of Lord Durham justice, and displayed a calmness in debate which contrasted strikingly with the irritability and personalities of Lord Brougham. The debate brought forcibly to light the disposition of Lord Durham to carry matters with a high hand in his new government, and his deficiency in that wariness and prudence so essential to a chief governor. After a few remarks from Lord Brougham, the bill was read a second time by a majority of fifty-four against thirty-six. On the following day Lord Melbourne informed the house that ministers had resolved to advise the queen to disallow of the whole ordinance. It was with the deepest regret and alarm that they had taken this course; nor was it without the greatest apprehension of the consequences that they had come to this determination. His lordship then intimated his approval of the indemnity bill, and that he should in a future stage of the proceedings move a clause explanatory of Sir William Follett’s proviso. Lord Brougham commended ministers for their “judicious, wise, politic, and most virtuous resolution.” The Duke of Wellington was by no means inclined to sanction Lord Melbourne’s proposed explanation of the proviso: Sir John Colborne had acted under the law as it stood, and must have found it sufficient for the purpose. The Marquis of Lansdowne remarked, that if the noble lords opposite acquiesced in the mode in which Sir John Colborne had exercised his authority; if they admitted that he had not exceeded the law, Lord Melbourne’s proposed clause would be unnecessary. That gentleman had been permitted to pass an act of attainder, which had lain unnoticed on the table for six weeks. Ministers only claimed for Lord Durham the power which was conceded to his predecessor: he desired to know whether Sir John Colborne had acted in conformity with the law. Lord Brougham replied, that Lord Durham’s powers were coextensive with those of Sir John Colborne; but as to whether or not that officer had exceeded the limits of his authority, he begged to say that he did not feel himself at liberty to answer. It is quite clear, indeed, that no noble lord could have answered this question satisfactorily; for if Lord Durham had been guilty in passing an act of attainder, the same guilt must have attached to Sir John Colborne; and if the one had been pronounced innocent, the other must have shared in his innocence. This question, which was one of the greatest importance, however, was allowed to pass over; and in the course of the evening Lord Melbourne moved the insertion of his explanatory clause, which, after reciting the proviso, proceeded to declare, that it should not extend to prevent the governor and council from passing such laws as might be necessary for the safety of the province, or from providing for the punishment or detention of persons engaged in conspiracies against the government. By the results of this clause, in fact, and the discussions which followed, Lord Brougham’s bill was stripped of its declaratory character, and reduced to a mere act of indemnity to the parties concerned in the transportation and detention of the Bermuda prisoners. In this mutilated condition Lord Brougham moved the third reading of the bill, which he did with evident reluctance, inasmuch as he rightly considered that its chief value lay in its declaratory character. “As I have been accidentally mixed up with this business,” said his lordship, “I have no hesitation in moving the third reading of the bill, as it now stands, although quite sensible that I am making that motion on the part of her majesty’s government.” On this occasion the lord-chief-justice Denman spoke on the question for the first time. His objections to the ordinance were directed to a gross violation of the constitution. As to the indemnity, he was entirely opposed to it; the passing of such bills was one of the most unjustifiable practices of parliament. Publie functionaries might be justified by their good intentions in overstepping the law; but parliament had no right to say to the parties who had suffered by such excess of authority, “You can have no redress against those persons who have wronged you, because it is our pleasure to indemnify them.” “If indeed,” he continued, “parliament are of opinion that individuals, actuated by a good and upright intention, and only zealous for the public service, have broken the laws, let them indemnify those individuals out of the public purse, against the consequences of the legal proceedings that may be instituted; but let them not leave the injured party without a remedy.” The bill was finally read a third time, and passed in the lords.

Lord Brougham’s bill was introduced into the house of commons on the 13th of August, and read a first and second time without any discussion. On the following day, however, Lord John Russell brought the subject before the house. His lordship said it was his intention to submit to the house of commons a proposal which he made with extreme reluctance; namely, that they should assent to the bill as it came down from the lords without any amendment. He presumed that no objection would be made to the indemnity which it was the object of the bill to provide; and he then explained in what sense he understood the act for governing Canada. The discussion which ensued was similar in argument and spirit to the debates in the house of lords. The house went into committee on the bill. No amendments were introduced; and on the 15th of August Lord John Russell moved the third reading, which, after a short debate, was carried without a division.

QUEEN PROROGUES PARLIAMENT.

The queen prorogued parliament on the 16th of August. Being seated on the throne her majesty was addressed by the speaker of the house of commons on the subject of the suspension of the constitution of Lower Canada, and the Irish poor-law and tithe bills. The queen then gave the royal assent to a series of bills, after which she proceeded to read the speech. In the speech her majesty lamented that war still continued in Spain; adverted to the affairs of Canada; noticed the progress which had been made towards the entire abolition of negro-apprenticeship; made some approving observations on the attention which had been bestowed upon the amendment of the domestic institutions of the country; thanked the commons for providing for the expenses of her household, &c.; and expressed her satisfaction in having given her assent to a bill for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland. Her majesty concluded thus: “My lords and gentlemen,—The many useful measures which you have been able to consider, while the settlement of the civil list and the state of Canada demanded so much of your attention, are a satisfactory proof of your zeal for the public good. You are so well acquainted with the duties which now devolve upon you in your respective counties, that it is unnecessary to remind you of them, In the discharge of them you may securely rely upon my firm support; and it only remains to express an humble hope that Divine Providence may watch over us all, and prosper our united efforts for the welfare of our country.”

DISAFFECTION AMONG THE WORKING CLASSES.

During the autumn of this year a turbulent spirit displayed itself among the working classes in the manufacturing districts. Meetings were held in various quarters, and demagogues addressed the assembled multitudes in the most inflammatory language. The twofold cause of this disaffection was the poor-laws and the price of bread; and as a remedy for these evils the people were taught to ask for universal suffrage. A favourite practice with the parties to these transactions was to assemble by torchlight in the open air—a practice which gave a mystery to the meetings well calculated to strike the imagination of the vulgar, and which gave those whose employment did not admit of their being present in the daytime, an opportunity of attending them. The speeches delivered at these meetings have been well characterized as “furious nonsense;” but at the same time they were calculated to work mischief in the community. Happily, however, the Whigs were in office, and for their own interest’s sake they restrained these ebullitions. Had there been a Conservative government, possibly the danger might have been greater.

PROPOSED REDUCTION OF THE RATES OF POSTAGE.