Chapter L: {victoria. 1839—1840} (1)

State of Parties..... Meeting of Parliament..... The Corn-
law Question..... The Affairs of Ireland discussed in
Parliament..... Proceedings in Parliament respecting
Jamaica..... Resignation of Ministers, and Failure of Sir
Robert Peel to form a new Administration, &c. National
Education..... The Affairs of Canada..... The second Jamaica
Bill, &c. Bill for the Suppression of the Portuguese
Slave trade, &c. Motion for the Ballot..... Act for the
better ordering of Prisons..... Motion for a Committee of
the whole House to consider the National Petition.....
Birmingham Riots, &c. The Budget; proposed Reduction of
Postage Duties, &c. Prorogation of Parliament.....
Affairs in the East Indies..... State of the Continent.

STATE OF PARTIES.

{A.D. 1839}

It has been noticed in a previous page that the relative strength of the two great parties in the country continued much the same as they were at the commencement of the year 1837. The Whigs, indeed, gained by the change which had taken place in the monarchy, inasmuch as by the death of the late king they were delivered from an avowed adversary, and by the accession of Queen Victoria they gained a known friend to their cause. The ministers, indeed, found considerable advantage in her support. Yet in the house of commons the number of’ their supporters had upon the whole rather decreased since their accession to the government; and in the country generally their popularity may be said to have continued on the decline. One of the principal grounds in this change is to be found in the connection of government with the agitator O’Connell. Although that gentleman had rendered many services to the cause of reform, yet his delinquencies were so many, that he never enjoyed the sympathy of any considerable mass of the English people. Moreover, popery, of which he was one of the leaders, is still unpopular in this country, and the Conservatives sedulously took advantage of the connection of the ministers with him to raise apprehensions of Romanist intrigue and encroachment. This was, therefore, a great source of embarrassment to the ministry; and yet they could not offend this man of the people of Ireland by standing aloof from him. Another cause of embarrassment was the movement of the people calling themselves Chartists.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was opened by the queen in person on the 6th of February. The speech referred to the discontents in England and Ireland and the insurrection in Canada, and recommended improvements in the law, and reforms as the remedy for this state of things, while it expressed a determination to maintain the authority of the crown.

The addresses in the lords and commons were, as usual, the occasion of long party debates, in which all the irritating topics of the day were made the most of by the opposition. The affairs of Ireland and the East occupied the greatest prominence; next to these, Chartism and the general distress; while Canada and the Iberian peninsula afforded fertile subjects for the opposition speakers, with which to annoy the government. Free-trade, and the duties on the importation of corn, became a subject of important debate at this juncture. In the commons Sir Robert Peel threw himself, acrimoniously, and with all his energy, into this controversy, and used all the exploded arguments of the protectionists with the air of one who for the first time urged them upon the house. Mr. Villiers severely chastised the protectionist champion, showing how unscrupulously he played the part of a plagiarist even in the sophisms he employed. Mr. Duncombe had the bad taste to move an amendment, which he knew there was no hope of carrying, or of finding a tolerable minority to support, thus impeding the public business without any counterpoising benefit.

When the address was brought up, Mr. O’Connell animadverted in strong language upon the transfer of Limbourg and Luxembourg to Holland: it was one of the greatest cruelties ever committed that the five powers should impose such terms on Belgium. In reply, Lord Palmerston observed that by the treaty of Vienna Limbourg was annexed to the Seven United Provinces. Luxembourg, by the same treaty, was constituted a separate sovereignty, as a grand duchy, to be held by the same individual who should be king of the Netherlands; but by a separate title, and transmissible in a separate line of succession. The kingdom of the Netherlands went to the heirs general of the king, while Luxembourg would descend to the heirs male only: the king of the Netherlands in that character was not a member of the Germanic confederation, but he was a member as grand duke of Luxembourg; and when the grand duchy was formed, it became subject to the federal constitution, and to the regulations which bound the members of the confederacy. When the revolution broke out it extended to Luxembourg, and the king of the Netherlands applied for aid to the five powers. It was ultimately found that the only way of arranging the difficulties between Holland and Belgium was a separation; but the five powers did not feel themselves competent, nor were they competent according to the treaties which governed the relations of the states of Europe, to deal with the question as regarded Luxembourg. In the progress of the negociation the Belgian government expressed a strong desire that a portion of Luxembourg and Limbourg should form a part of Belgium; and the five powers had no objection to this, provided the consent of the Germanic confederation, which had full liberty to re-establish the grand duke in his rights, could be obtained. The diet gave permission, on condition that some equivalent portion of territory should be ceded by Belgium in return for what was detached from the duchy of Luxembourg. To these terms the Belgian government consented, and an arrangement was made, by which it was agreed that for the incorporation of a part of Luxembourg in the kingdom of Belgium an equivalent should be provided by the latter state. This arrangement formed part of the twenty-four articles; and it was perfectly true that these articles, as Mr. O’Connell had said, were accepted by Belgium, and not by Holland. When, however, these articles were incorporated into a regular treaty between Belgium and the five powers, then that treaty became a binding instrument on the contracting party: the five powers were entitled to keep Belgium to the terms of the treaty, and Belgium in turn was entitled to claim their observance of it. The Belgian government had, indeed, on various occasions appealed to the treaty as the charter of its rights; and it was preposterous that, after so regarding it for eight years, they should finally declare to all Europe, because it suited their convenience, that the fundamental articles of the treaty were of no obligation to them. His lordship concluded by saying that, so far from its being an injustice in the five powers to refuse to add Luxembourg to Belgium, it would have been an act of the grossest oppression if they had consented to make a violent seizure of that territory for the purpose of transferring it: all that was done was to leave the matter as it was settled at the congress of Vienna.

THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

At this time a great many petitions had been presented to both houses of parliament on the subject of the corn-laws. On the 18th of February Lord Brougham moved that these petitions should “be referred to a committee of the whole house, and that evidence be heard at the bar.” The Dukes of Buckingham and Richmond and Earl Stanhope opposed the motion; and Lord Melbourne thought that the plan proposed would have no other result than the obstruction of the business of the house, and to perplex and embarrass the question itself. The Duke of Wellington said that the proposed mode of inquiry was without a precedent, and contended that without protection agriculture could not prosper. The reduction of the duty even a trifle too much might involve the country in the utmost difficulty, by rendering the cultivation of the soil impossible, and thereby ruining a large class of industrious and at present happy people. The motion was negatived without a division.

The subject of the corn-laws was debated in the house of commons on the following day. Mr. Villiers moved, “that certain persons be heard at the bar of the house by their agents, witnesses, or counsel, in support of the allegations of the petition presented to the house on the 15th instant, complaining of the operation of the corn-laws.” In support of this motion, Mr. Villiers considered at great length the effect of the corn-laws upon the manufactures and commerce of the country. Sir Francis Burdett objected to the course proposed; but, at the same time, he stated that it was his conviction that the landed interest, in which he was himself concerned, was under erroneous impressions on the subject. The debate which followed brought out speeches from many of the men who afterwards took so prominent a part in promoting or opposing the repeal of the corn-laws—such as Mr. Mark Philips (member for Manchester), Lord Stanley, Lord Howick, and Sir Robert Peel. The first-named made a useful and practical speech; Lord Stanley an absurd one; Lord Howick was as capricious and crotchetty as on most other occasions; Sir Robert Peel repeated himself and other hack orators on the side of the protectionists. Mr. Villiers made a calm and effective reply, in which he especially directed his skill as a debater to the exposure of the fallacies of Sir Robert Peel, whose ignorance or partizanship he handled with a calm and dignified severity. On a division the motion was rejected by three hundred and sixty-one against one hundred and seventy-two.

THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT.

On the 1st of January an Irish nobleman, Lord Norbury, was savagely murdered. His lordship was shot within sight of his own house, in clear daylight, with many people at hand, and yet the assassin escaped with impunity. The occurrence was the more shocking, because the deceased nobleman was a most exemplary character both as a man and as a landlord. His lordship expired on the 3rd of January, after forty-three hours of suffering; and on the same day a notification to the magistrates was issued by the lord-lieutenant of the county, requesting their attendance on the 10th instant, to consider the measures necessary to be taken in consequence of the late outrage. This meeting was held, under the auspices of Lord Osmantown, at Tullamore, and in the course of it resolutions to the following effect were unanimously adopted:—“That it appears to this meeting, that property had its duties as well as its rights; that the answer conveyed to the magistrates of Tipperary by Mr. under-secretary Drummond has had the effect of increasing the animosities entertained against the owners of the soil, and has emboldened the disturbers of the public peace. That finding from the circumstances mentioned in the former resolutions that there is little room to hope for a successful appeal to the Irish executive, we feel it a duty to apply to the people of England, the legislature, and the throne, for protection. That the magistrates assembled are determined to co-operate with the government in any manner pointed out by her majesty’s ministers which may give the slightest hope of restoring tranquillity in this distracted country.” In the meantime the opposite party made efforts of counteraction. Mr. O’Connell was indefatigable in stirring up his Precursor Society and other similar machines of agitation. Festivals were even held in honour of the demagogue; and at one of these Mr. O’Connell actually asserted that the assassin of Lord Norbury had left on the soil where he had posted himself, not the print of a rustic brogue, but the impress of a well-made Dublin boot. By this and other insinuations, indeed, the arch-agitator directed the minds of the audience to the conclusion that the earl had met his death at the hands of one bound to him by the nearest of natural ties—his son.

The state of Ireland being such, it naturally became a subject for discussion in parliament. On the 7th of March Mr. Shaw moved for returns of the number of committals, convictions, inquests, rewards, and advertisements for the discovery of offenders in Ireland, from 1835 to 1839, in order to enable the house to form a judgment with regard to the actual amount and increase of crime in that country. Lord Morpeth expressed his satisfaction at the course Mr. Shaw had taken; instead of appealing to parliament for a verdict of censure upon government, he had simply moved for papers. There could be no objection to the issue of any information respecting Lord Normanby’s administration: he might, indeed, move for returns applicable to a period beyond the last four years, in the confidence that the late lord-lieutenant would have nothing to fear from the comparison. Mr. Colquhoun endeavoured to show, from a long enumeration of cases, that crime had been gaining ground under the system of agitation which prevailed, and which was connived at by the present government. Colonel Conolly, and Messrs. Villiers, Stuart, Litton, and Emerson Tennent, all urged the same serious charge against the Irish administration which had been made by preceding speakers, Mr. O’Connell, after delivering a violent speech, in which he was constantly interrupted, and in which he charged several members with coming to parliament for the sole purpose of villifying their native land, moved that after the word “Ireland” there be added the words, “also similar returns for England, Wales, and Scotland.” The last speaker on this evening was Serjeant Jackson, who maintained that by almost every single exercise of patronage, and especially by the appointment of Lord Ebrington to the vice-royalty, government had favoured the cause of agitation. The debate was resumed on the 11th of March, when the house was addressed by Messrs. Lefroy, French, and Sir Charles Styles. As the latter gentleman was speaking the house was counted out, and the discussion, which had little reference to the motion, therefore dropped. The subject of the state of Ireland was introduced in the upper house on the 21st of March by Lord Roden, who moved for a select committee of inquiry into the state of Ireland since 1835, with respect to the commission of crime. His lordship, indeed, adopted the most inculpatory view of the question, and every circumstance in his delineation of the matter—the deeply-rooted ribbon conspiracy; the unredressed grievances of the persecuted Protestants at Achill, and the general insecurity of life and property, were, in his opinion, either created by the conduct of Lord Normanby, or had acquired an aggravated character under his auspices. In reply Lord Normanby vindicated his administration with very great ability. Lord Melbourne also ably defended the noble marquis. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Brougham offered an earnest and eloquent support to Lord Roden’s motion. The two noble lords spoke as if they had had a previous concert and arrangement. This alliance of Lord Brougham with the Duke of Wellington did not silence Lord Plunkett. He begged to know what course Lord Brougham would pursue in the event of the motion being carried. Had he any measure of his own to propose, or was he willing to adopt the propositions of others? Was he willing to commit all the friends with whom he had hitherto acted, and to surrender all the principles and opinions which he had advocated throughout life? On a division, Lord Boden’s motion was carried by a majority of sixty-three against fifty-eight: a result which gave great dissatisfaction to the ministers. On the day following, indeed, Lord John Russell gave notice of his intention to take the opinion of the house of commons on the government of Ireland in late years in the very first week after the Easter recess.

The vote of the house of lords also alarmed and gave umbrage to Ireland’s agitators. Incensed by it, Mr. O’Connell crossed St. George’s Channel as soon as the houses had arisen, in order to increase the turbulence of his country. Day after day was he to be seen on the corn exchange haranguing the multitude; on Sundays, after mass, he attended parochial meetings; and the columns of the newspapers were filled with the exercitations of his pen. On the 11th of April a grand meeting was held in the theatre-royal, to prepare petitions to the queen and the house of commons, declaratory of their confidence in the actual administration of Ireland. On this occasion Mr. O’Connell exerted all his eloquence to rouse the passions of his hearers, and their shouts told that he was but too successful. “Shout!” he exclaimed at the close of his harangue. The shout that that day emanated from that theatre would be heard in St. Stephen’s, and it would cheer the heart of the queen at St. James’s.

When the house of commons, resumed its sittings on the 8th of April, Lord John Russell gave notice of his intention on the 15th to propose the following resolution:—“That it is the opinion of this house that it is expedient to persevere in those principles which have guided the executive government of Ireland of late years, and which have tended to the effectual administration of the laws and the general improvement of that part of the United Kingdom.” On the following day Sir Robert Peel gave notice that he should move an amendment on this resolution, and on the 12th the right honourable baronet brought forward the draught of his resolutions. They read thus:—“Resolved, that on the 13th day of March last, a motion was made in this house for the production of various documents connected with the state of Ireland, in respect to crime and outrage; including communications made to the Irish government relating to offences connected with ribbonism, and all memorials, resolutions, and addresses, forwarded to the Irish government by magistrates, or other official persons, in respect of crimes and outrages committed in Ireland, and the answers thereto. That the period included within the returns so called for extends from the commencement of the year 1835 to the present time; and that the motion made for the production of them was assented to by this house, no opposition to it having been offered to it on the part of her majesty’s government. That on the 21st day of March last, the house of lords appointed a select committee to inquire into the state of Ireland since the year 1835, in respect to crime and outrage, which have rendered life and property insecure in that part of the empire. That, in consequence of the appointment of such committee by the house of lords, it has been proposed that this house should resolve, ‘That it is the opinion of this house that it is expedient to persevere in those principles which have guided the executive government of late years, and which have tended to the effectual administration of the law, and the general improvement of that part of the United Kingdom.’ Resolved, that it appears to this house, that the appointment of a committee of inquiry by the house of lords, under the circumstances, and for the purposes above-mentioned, does not justify her majesty’s ministers in calling upon this house, without previous inquiry, or even the production of the information which this house has required, to make a declaration of opinion with respect to one branch of the public policy of the executive government, still less a declaration of opinions, which is neither explicit as to the principles which it professes to approve, nor definite as to the period to which it refers; and that it is not fitting that this house should adopt a proceeding which has the appearance of calling in question the undoubted right of the house of lords to inquire into the state of Ireland in respect to crime and outrage, more especially when the exercise of that right by the house of lords does not interfere with any previous proceeding or resolution of the house of commons, nor with the progress of any legislative measure assented to by the house of commons, or at present under its consideration.” The adroitness with which these resolutions were framed are apparent, and needs no comment; they completely evaded all the difficulties of the case. The situation of the ministers was also rendered more difficult by the conduct of the radical section of the house, whose tactics were called into play on this occasion. They felt themselves bound, indeed, to support Lord John Russell’s motion, but then they wished him to go further. No sooner had Sir Robert Peel sat down, indeed, than Mr. Duncombe stated that in the event of the noble lord’s resolution being-carried, it was in his contemplation to move an addition to it in the following terms:—“And that it is expedient also to effect such further reforms in the representation of the people in parliament as would conduce to their contentment, and to the security and welfare of the kingdom at large.”

On the 15th of April Lord John Russell moved his long-announced resolution of confidence on the part of the house in the executive government of Ireland. His lordship dwelt at great length on the constitutional right of the lords to make inquiry into the state of Ireland and the conduct of its government. He did not deny that right; but considering such a measure under all its circumstances, the indiscriminate vehemence of the inculpations allowed to circulate, the limitation of time, the very name of the mover, he could not but feel that he was called upon to demand from the house of commons a definite opinion upon the conduct of the Irish administration. Sir Robert Peel contended that the noble lord’s resolution was partial and unintelligible. Mr. Spring Rice, in reply, contended that the vote of the house of lords was a vote of censure upon government; and he remonstrated against the unfairness of making the existence of crime in Ireland a charge against the present government, when nobody ever thought of censuring preceding administrations on account of turbulence and outrages in Ireland. At the close of Mr. Spring Rice’s speech the debate was adjourned, and subsequently two adjournments took place. In the course of the debate ministers were supported by Messrs. Smith O’Brien, Bellew, Henry Grattan, Grote, Edward Lytton Bulwer, Hume, the O’Connor Don, Sir William Somerville, and others, and opposed by Messrs. Lascelles, Sidney Herbert, Lucas, Shaw, Colonel Conolly, Sir James Graham, and others. Mr. Shiel delivered a long and eloquent speech in defence of Lord Normanby. The debate was closed by Mr. O’Connell, whose statements, as usual, were more distinguished for their animated delivery than their accuracy. On a division Sir Robert Peel’s amendment was negatived by three hundred and eighteen against two hundred and ninety-six; and Mr. Duncombe’s rider by two hundred and ninety-nine against eighty-one.

IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

On the 16th of February Lord Morpeth again moved for leave to bring in a bill for the regulation of municipal corporations in Ireland. It has been seen that the main point of dispute on this subject between the two houses was the amount of the franchise; the house of lords contending that it should be acquired by the occupation for twelve months of a tenement of the value of ten pounds, to be made up of the sum at which it was rated to the relief of the poor; and the house of commons, that the occupation of a tenement rated at the net annual value of eight pounds for six months should confer the qualification in question. It was proposed to retain this last franchise in the present measure; and the only material difference between the present and the former bill consisted in a provision which was now made for the eventual adoption of the English franchise. Lord Morpeth proposed that in whatever town, otherwise competent to receive such institutions, the poor-law act should have been in operation for three years, all persons resident for that period, and rated to any amount, should be entitled to vote for the election of municipal officers. The whole of schedule A, containing the towns in which corporations were to be established, remained the same; but with regard to schedule B, which enumerated those towns to which municipal institutions might be granted on petition of the inhabitants, it was proposed that, without the signatures of an absolute majority, the crown might establish corporations in those places as well as in any other town of three thousand inhabitants, in which there might be a number of persons occupying premises at not less than £4 per annum, sufficient to make up a constituency. On the second reading of the bill it met with a stern opposition of the conservative party; but it was eventually carried through by the small majority of twenty-six. The bill was committed _pro-formâ_ on the 19th of April; but many delays took place in order that thirty-four clauses, which should have made part of the original measure, should be included. On the 4th of July, however, the house went into committee upon clause twenty, which referred to the value of the franchise. An attempt was made by Mr. Shaw to introduce a £10 qualification, which had been the ultimatum of the Conservatives in the last session: but after a short debate the original question was carried by one hundred and fifty-four against fifty-four. Some other minor amendments were subsequently proposed, but they were negatived; and the bill was finally carried in the commons by a majority of ninety-seven against seventy-six.

On the 22nd of July, the Irish Municipal Corporations bill was read a second time in the house of lords. On the 25th of July, before the house went into committee, Lord Lyndhurst gave notice of the amendments which he intended to move in the course of the evening, and of his intention to vote against the third reading, if the bill should come unaltered out of the committee. The only amendment of the noble lord which gave rise to any discussion after their lordships went into committee was for raising the qualification from £8 to £10. This was objected to by Lord Melbourne, who said, that he could not but think that their lordships were acting no very worthy part, in raising difficulties in the way of what they all considered desirable—the settlement of the question. The Duke of Wellington administered a severe rebuke to his lordship for uttering such a sentiment; and on a division the amendment was carried by a majority of ninety-three against forty-three. A number of minor amendments were also made in conformity with Lord Lyndhurst’s suggestions; and on the 5th of August the bill was read a third time, and passed.

Lord John Russell moved the order of the day, for the consideration of the lords’ amendments, on the 12th of August; on which occasion he stated that it was not advisable, in his opinion, to take objection to the bill on the question of privilege, on account of certain clauses transferring certain fiscal powers from the grand-juries to the new town-councils, which had been struck out in the other house, and to send it back to the lords. The only course to pursue would be to bring in a new bill either now or at the beginning of the next session. He moved, therefore, that the amendments be taken into consideration that day three months, in the hope that he might be able finally to adjust the question. This motion was agreed to.

On the 6th of August Lord Brougham brought forward several resolutions on the administration of justice in Ireland under the Marquis of Normanby. His lordship’s remarks were chiefly confined to Lord Normanby’s public measures; and the debate in general was conducted in a tone friendly to the noble marquis, even by the opposite party. At the same time the resolutions were carried by a majority of eighty-six against fifty-two.

PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT RESPECTING JAMAICA.

It has been seen that in the earlier part of the preceding year the agitation on the subject of West India slavery had become general throughout the kingdom, and that it gave rise to discussion in parliament. An important bill was passed, entitled “An act to amend the act for the abolition of slavery.” Many salutary provisions were made in this instrument for the further protection of the apprentices; and in order to serve the execution of such regulations of the former enactment as had been disregarded by the planters. This act was promulgated in Jamaica by the governor on the 1st of June; and on the 5th of the same month he convened the legislature of that colony. In his speech Sir Lionel Smith informed the assembly that he had called the house together to take into consideration the state of the island, and to recommend the early and equal abolition of apprenticeship for all parties. The assembly entered a warm remonstrance against the abolition amendment act; but nevertheless on the 16th of June the governor gave the royal assent to an act for the entire abolition of prædial apprenticeship from the 1st of August, 1838.

On the arrival in England of the news of this voluntary abandonment on the part of the planters of the remaining term of apprenticeship. Lord Melbourne presented to the house of lords an important bill, founded on the report of Captain Pringle, empowering her majesty in council to make rules for the government of the West India prisons, to appoint inspectors, and regulate other matters of necessary discipline. This bill was sent out and promulgated by the governor in a proclamation affixed to the doors of their house about six weeks before the meeting of the assembly. That meeting took place on the 30th of October, and their very first procedure was to pass four resolutions condemnatory of Lord Melbourne’s bill; complaining of the violation of their rights by the parliament of Great Britain; asserting that as a body they (the assembly) had ceased to exist for any useful purpose to the people whom they represented; and that therefore they would abstain from the exercise of any legislative function, excepting such as might be necessary to preserve inviolate the faith of the island with the public creditor, until her majesty’s pleasure should be known, whether her subjects of Jamaica, now in a state of freedom, should henceforth be treated as subjects, with the power of making laws for their own government, or as a conquered colony. Sir Lionel now prorogued the assembly for a few days; but when they again met they asserted their determination to adhere to their resolutions, and the result of their contumacy was the final prorogation of their house.

In consequence of these transactions, on the 9th of April Mr. Labouchere introduced a bill to suspend the existing constitution for five years. In the meantime it was proposed to make provision for the government of that colony by investing it _pro tempore_ in the hands of a governor, and a council augmented by the accession of three persons, who would be sent from England as commissioners, especially qualified by experience to assist in the consideration of some of the more important topics to which their early attention would be directed, as the improvement of the negroes, the poor-laws, and prison discipline. This interval, it was said, would give time for the enactment of such laws as were called for by the transition state of the colony, and the government afterwards proposed to restore the ancient constitution, subject to the requisite modifications. The introduction of this measure was not opposed by the Conservatives. The bill arrived at the second reading on the 23rd of April, when Sir Robert Peel stated that he would again allow it to be read _pro formâ_. Counsel would then be heard at the bar against the measure: he was even content to have the bill committed, and take the discussion on the question that the speaker do now leave the chair. At the same time, before they proceeded to suspend the constitution of Jamaica for five years, and to vest so great an authority of taxation in an unpopular government, he could wish to give to the assembly the power of reconsidering their course, and returning to their duties. If the house of assembly should still adhere to their refractory courses, he was disposed to confide to ministers the power of carrying on the government for a time, until parliament should decide otherwise; or if it could be further shown that public business would be prejudiced by such delay, he would, make no more opposition to the bill. Counsel were then heard; the cause of the colony being pleaded by Sergeant Mereweather and Mr. Burge, the accredited agent of the colonies. The debate on the question was opened on the 3rd of May, when Sir Robert Peel expressed his disappointment that it had not been found practicable to come to some arrangement with regard to the government of Jamaica without any party conflict, or even any serious division on the course to be pursued. He thought that the temporary abrogation of a popular form of government was by no means desirable. Mr. Labouchere maintained that the result of the great experiment of emancipation would depend on the fate of this bill. The only chance of securing the investment of English capital, and ensuring success to the experiments to be tried of cultivating the estates by free labour, lay in the timely introduction of proper regulations. It would be vexatious if, after all, the negroes should take to squatting, and pass their lives in indolence; but half of the good work would have been achieved until the black was raised to the condition of a free and laborious citizen. As matters stood, the negroes refused to enter into contracts; the only method for obtaining from the black population the continuous labour which was notoriously indispensable for the cultivation of sugar, was to induce them to enter into an agreement to work uninterruptedly for a stipulated sum of money. So arbitrary and partial, however, was the power assigned by the present law of contract, that the negro was reluctant to engage on such conditions. This called for alteration; and so likewise did the law relating to the militia, as well as the vagrancy law and the constitution of the courts of justice. It would also be advisable to introduce some measure of relief for the poor; but nothing could be effected in the present discontinuance of all legislation. Mr. Labouchere added, that the present measure, though avowedly an arbitrary one, would, after all, only place Jamaica on the same footing with the other crown colonies, who were administered by a governor and council. He concluded by proposing two years and a half instead of five as the shortest interval within which the measures in contemplation could be prepared. Mr. Godson opposed the measure; and Mr. Charles Buller delivered a clever speech in its support. Mr. Hume expressed his reluctance to separate himself from the government on this question; but he could not vote in favour of such injustice. Sir George Grey vindicated the measure, noticing a variety of instances in which the assembly had eluded the recommendations of government in favour of the negroes, and referring, in proof of his assertion, to several conservative authorities.

The house then adjourned; and the debate was opened on the following Monday by Mr. Maclean. The bill on this night was supported by Sir Eardley Wilmot, and Messrs. Warburton and O’Connell; and opposed by Messrs. Grote, Gaily Knight, Goulburn, Gladstone, and Lord Stanley. The debate was closed by Lord John Russell, who enumerated a short summary of the arguments for the bill, and declaimed against those of his usual supporters who were about to desert him. On a division the measure was carried by a majority of five only, the numbers being, in favour of the bill, two hundred and ninety-four; against it, two hundred and eighty-nine.

RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS, AND FAILURE OF SIR ROBERT PEEL TO FORM A NEW ADMINISTRATION, ETC.

The result of the debate on the Jamaica suspension bill was followed by the resignation of the ministers. On the 7th of May the leading members of the administration in both houses declared their inability to carry on the government with advantage to the public service, and that they had in consequence tendered their resignations, which her majesty had graciously accepted. After the lapse of a week the house of commons again met, when Lord John Russell stated, that since he last addressed them Sir Robert Peel had received authority from her majesty to form a new administration; and that the attempt of the right honourable baronet having failed, her majesty had been graciously pleased to permit that gentleman to state the circumstances which had led to that failure. In explanation, Sir Robert Peel said that her majesty had invited the Duke of Wellington to assist her in the formation of a new government; and that his grace had informed her that, in his opinion, the chief difficulties a government would have to encounter would be in the house of commons; and for that and other reasons the noble duke had advised her majesty to send for him as the person best qualified to undertake the duties of prime minister. Her majesty accordingly sent for him, and when he waited on her, he stated his sense of the difficulties a new government would have to encounter; but that, having been a party to the vote of the house which led to those difficulties, nothing should prevent him from tendering to her majesty every assistance in his power. Subsequently he submitted the following list of names to her majesty for approval in the formation of the new cabinet:—The Duke of Wellington, Lords Lyndhurst, Aberdeen, Ellenborough, and Stanley; Sirs James Graham, and Henry Hardinge, and Mr. Goulburn. Sir Robert proceeded to state that no difficulties arose to lead to his relinquishing to form a new administration until Thursday; and that difficulty arose, he said, exclusively from that portion of the household which is filled by the ladies in her majesty’s service. On the Wednesday night previous to this event, he had stated to those whom he proposed to submit to her majesty as ministers, the course he intended to pursue with respect to the household. He had little considered the subject; and with regard to the female part of it, he scarcely knew of whom it consisted. He took the red book in his hand, however, and there saw the different appointments. He then stated that with reference to all the subordinate appointments below the rank of a lady of the bedchamber, he should propose no change to her majesty; and that with respect to the superior class he took for granted they would relieve him from any difficulty, by at once relinquishing their offices. If such offices, however, should not be voluntarily relinquished, he gave it as his opinion that they should be subject to some change, although in some instances the absence of all political feeling might render any such change unnecessary. On the Thursday he saw her majesty, when he made a verbal communication to such an effect. He would not enter into the precise nature of this communication, but simply read two letters which had subsequently passed: one, conveying her majesty’s impressions, and the other his own. These letters read thus:—

“_Buckingham Palace, May 10th_, 1839.

“The queen having considered the proposal made to her yesterday by Sir Robert Peel, to remove the ladies of her bedchamber, cannot consent to adopt a course which she conceives to be contrary to usage, and which is repugnant to her feelings.”

“_Whitehall, May 10th_, 1839.

“Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your majesty, and has had the honour of receiving your majesty’s note of this morning. In respectfully submitting to your majesty’s pleasure, and humbly returning into your majesty’s hands the important trust which your majesty had been graciously pleased to transmit to him, Sir Robert Peel trusts that your majesty will permit him to state to your majesty, his impression with respect to the circumstances which have led to the termination of his attempt to form an administration for the conduct of your majesty’s service. In the interview with which your majesty honoured Sir Robert Peel yesterday morning, after he had submitted to your majesty the names of those whom he proposed to recommend to the principal executive appointments, he mentioned to your majesty his earnest wish, to be enabled by your majesty’s sanction, so to constitute your majesty’s household that your majesty’s confidential servants might have the advantage of a public demonstration of your majesty’s full support and confidence; and that at the same time, as far as possible consistently with that demonstration, each individual appointment in the household should be entirely acceptable to your majesty’s personal feelings. On your majesty expressing a desire that the Earl of Liverpool should hold an office in the household, Sir Robert Peel requested your majesty’s permission at once to offer to Lord Liverpool the office of lord-steward, or any other which he might prefer. Sir Robert Peel then observed, that he should have every wish to apply a similar principle to the chief appointments which are filled by the ladies of your majesty’s household: upon which your majesty was pleased to remark that you must reserve the whole of these appointments, and that it was your majesty’s pleasure the whole should continue, as at present, without change. The Duke of Wellington, in the interview to which your majesty subsequently admitted him, understood that this was your majesty’s determination, and concurred with Sir Robert Peel in opinion, that, considering the great difficulties of the present crisis, and the expediency of making every effort in the first instance to conduct the public business of the country with the aid of the present parliament, it was essential to the success of the commission with which your majesty had honoured Sir Robert Peel, that he should have that public proof of your majesty’s entire support and confidence, which would be afforded by the permission to make some changes in that part of your majesty’s household, which your majesty resolved on maintaining entirely without change. Having had the opportunity, through your majesty’s gracious consideration, of reflecting upon this point, he humbly submits to your majesty that he is reluctantly compelled, by a sense of public duty and of the interest of your majesty’s service, to adhere to the opinion which he expressed to your majesty. He trusts he may be permitted at the same time to express to your majesty his grateful acknowledgments for the distinction which your majesty conferred upon him, by requiring his advice and assistance in the formation of an administration, and his earnest prayers that whatever arrangements your majesty may be enabled to make for that purpose, may be most conducive to your majesty’s personal comfort and happiness, and to the promotion of the public welfare.”

After reading these letters, Sir Robert Peel proceeded to notice certain misrepresentations with regard to his conduct in this affair, and to vindicate his policy in requiring the change alluded to in those letters. Lord John Russell replied at great length, and in reference to the point which proved a stumblingblock to Sir Robert Peel in his efforts to form an administration, said, that her majesty, after relating all the circumstances, was pleased to ask him whether he thought she was justified in making the refusal of a change in her household to the required extent? His lordship said, he replied that he thought her majesty was justified; and then she was pleased to observe, that as in the exercise of the powers of the crown she had hitherto given her support to the administration, she hoped I would consider myself bound now to support her majesty in return. His lordship then proceeded to state that on the next day a cabinet was held in Downing-street, at which her majesty’s confidential servants having taken into consideration the letter addressed by her majesty to Sir Robert Peel, and the reply of the right honourable baronet, were of opinion that for the purpose of giving to the administration that character of efficiency and stability, and those marks of the constitutional support of the crown, which are required to enable it to act usefully to the public service, it is reasonable that the great officers of the court, and situations held in the household by members of parliament, should be included in the political arrangements made in a change of the administration; but they were not of opinion that a similar principle should be applied or extended to the offices held by ladies in her majesty’s household. Lord John Russell concluded by saying that he conceived that those who thought her majesty justified in what she had done, should not refuse to assume the responsibility which belongs to their opinion; and that they should neither conceal nor evade the avowal of it, but should trust to the opinion of parliament, and of the country as to the result. In reply Sir Robert Peel said that Lord John Russell had relieved him from the greatest load of anxiety he had ever suffered under during his whole life; and as there was no important difference in their explanations, he thought it would be more respectful to her majesty to let the matter rest where it was. On the following evening a supplementary explanation of these matters was given in the lords; but as it would be mere repetition, it is not necessary to detail any portion of the speeches delivered. In the end the cabinet was reconstructed, and the first act of the house of commons, when it again met, was to elect Mr. Shaw Lefevre to the office of speaker, in the room of Mr. Abercrombie, who had three weeks previously declared his intention of resigning. Mr. Goulburn was nominated by the Conservatives in opposition to Mr. Shaw Lefevre; but the latter gentleman was elected by a majority of three hundred and seventeen against two hundred and ninety-nine. Mr. Shaw Lefevre took the chair accordingly.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.

Since the year 1833 parliament had granted annually the sum of £20,000 for the purposes of education. This money had been equally divided between the National Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society. Government, however, were not satisfied with merely asking an increase; they required liberty to change entirely the mode of its distribution. Their views on this subject were first made known to the house on the 12th of February, when Lord John Russell, in presenting certain papers connected with education, gave an outline of his views upon it, and stated the determination of himself and colleagues respecting it. His lordship proposed that the president of the council, and other privy-councillors, not exceeding five, should form a board for the consideration of the manner in which the grants made by parliament should be distributed. He further stated that the first object of such a board should be the establishment of a good normal school; and, in order to make that as perfect as possible, attention should be mainly directed to four objects—religious instruction; general education; moral training; and habits of industry, applied in learning some trade or profession. This brief outline was regarded with various feelings by the house and the public. Sir Robert Inglis confessed the noble lord had proposed to do less evil than he expected; while Mr. Wyse complained that he proposed much less good than was hoped for. The manner in which this step was followed up by the government subsequently was unfolded in a minute of the privy-council. This minute recommended that the sum of £10,000 granted by parliament in 1835 towards the erection of normal or model schools, should be given in equal proportions to the National Society and the British and Foreign School Society; and that the remainder of the subsequent grants of the years 1837 and 1838 yet unappropriated, any grant that may be voted in the present year, be chiefly applied in aid of subscriptions for buildings; and, in particular cases, for the support of schools connected with these societies. The report further stated, that the committee did not feel themselves precluded from making grants in particular cases which shall appear to them to call for the aid of government, although the application may not come from either of the two mentioned societies. The opinion of the committee, it was stated, was that the most useful applications of any sums voted by parliament, would consist in the employment of those moneys in the establishment of a normal school, under the direction of the state, and not placed under the management of a voluntary society. Finally, the committee recommended that no further grant be made now or hereafter for the establishment or support of normal schools, or of any other schools, unless the right of inspection be retained, in order to secure a conformity to the regulations and discipline established in the several schools, with such improvements as may from time to time be suggested by the committee. The report added, that a part of any grant voted in the present year might be usefully applied to the purposes of inspection, and to the means of acquiring a complete knowledge of the present state of education in England and Wales. The day after these resolutions appeared, Lord Ashley moved a call of the house for the 14th of June. This motion was seconded by Lord John Russell, who embraced the opportunity of warning the members against the petitions which had been presented against the ministerial scheme. Great error and misrepresentation, his lordship said, prevailed on this subject throughout the country. At the same time he stated that government would not persist in their proposal to found a normal school. His lordship concluded by some remarks on the merits of the National and British and Foreign School Society; and by stating that he should be ready to go into the report of the committee of the privy-council, and should also propose that the vote of £30,000, of which he had given notice, should be divided as it hitherto had been, between the two societies. Lord Stanley objected to the proposition for giving a direct control over the moral and the religious education of the people to a board or committee exclusively political in its character, and having no fixed principle of action. His lordship also objected to the plan for giving a secular rather than a religious education; contending that schoolmasters entrusted with the instruction of youth should be of sound doctrine. He concluded by moving an amendment to this effect, “That an address be presented to her majesty to rescind the order in council for constituting the proposed board of privy-council.” Lord Morpeth said that he conceived that the speech of Lord Stanley went to this extent—to separate by a specific vote of the house the executive government of the country from all superintendence and control over the general education of the people. He combated this notion at considerable length; arguing that so long as the state thought proper to employ Roman Catholic sinews, and to finger Unitarian gold, it could not refuse to extend to those by whom it so profited the blessings of education. Lord Ashley said that he considered the scheme propounded to the house to be hostile to the constitution, to the church, and to revealed religion itself, although he did not mean to assert it was unconstitutional. The remainder of the debate was conducted by Mr. Wyse, Mr. D’Israeli, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. O’Connell, Mr. Gladstone, and Sir Robert Peel. The house divided on the original question, that the order of the day for a committee of supply be read, which was carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty against two hundred and seventy-five. In accordance with this vote Lord John Russell, on the 24th of June, moved that the house should resolve itself into a committee of supply, in which committee, after recapitulating many of the arguments previously urged by himself and other members, he proposed that £30,000 be granted by her majesty for public education in Great Britain for the year 1839. Lord Mahon said, he felt it his duty to meet the motion with a direct negative. The debate which followed was chiefly remarkable for an eloquent speech delivered by Mr. Shiel in support of the motion. After a few words from Mr. Goulburn in opposition to the grant, the committee divided, and Lord John Russell’s proposition was carried by a majority of two only, the numbers being, for the grant, two hundred and seventy-five; against it, two hundred and seventy-three.

The subject of national education was introduced in the lords on the 5th of July, by the Archbishop of Canterbury; who, after defending the clergy from the attacks made on them by certain parties in regard to this government scheme, and entering into some details of the progress of education in this country, moved a series of resolutions condemnatory of the proposed system of education; and the resolutions were carried by a majority of two hundred and twenty-nine against one hundred and eighteen.

In consequence of this majority the lords went in a body to her majesty to offer their remonstrance against the proposed alteration in the manner of distributing the educational grant.

At a later period of the session Lord Brougham brought forward his plan for educating the people; but its merits were not canvassed by the house, and the consideration of it was adjourned till next session.

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.