Chapter LV: {victoria. 1844–1845} (1)

Meeting of Parliament..... Motion of the Stoppage of
Supplies..... Affairs of India..... Irish Affairs: Irish
Municipal Franchise, The Irish Church Question, Irish
Charitable Trusts Bill, Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal
Bill..... Restrictions on Labour in Factories, &c. The
Corn Laws and Free Trade Question..... Financial
Statements..... Sugar Duties Bill, &c. Bank Charter
and Banking Regulations..... Dissenters’ Chapels
Bill..... Sees of Bangor and St. Asapli..... Miscellaneous
Measures of the Session..... Prorogation of Parliament.....
The State of India..... Proceedings against Mr.
O’Connell..... Continental Affairs.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1844}

Parliament was opened by the queen in person on the 1st of February. Her majesty’s speech first alluded to her friendly relations with foreign powers; to the treaty concluded with China; to the annexation of Scinde to the British empire in India; to the estimates; and to the improved condition of several important branches of the trade and manufactures of the country. The speech then recommended attention to the revision of the charter of the Bank of England; to the state of the law and practice with regard to the occupation of land in Ireland; and to the law of registration in that country.

The debates on the address in both houses were not in any way remarkable, except for a bold speech by Mr. Sharman Crawford, demanding redress of the grievances of which the people of both England and Ireland complained. A contest also occurred between Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel in reference to the duties on the importation of foreign corn, the opposition leader maintaining that a fixed duty was desirable, and the ministerial leader advocating the system of variable duties, called a sliding-scale.

MOTION FOR THE STOPPAGE OF SUPPLIES.

In his speech during the discussion on the address, Mr. Sharman Crawford had threatened to move the stoppage of supplies. In accordance with this threat, on the 6th of February, after enumerating the grievances which the house had refused to inquire into, such as class legislations consisting of various commercial monopolies, he moved his resolution. After a few words in favour of the motion by Mr. Hume, and against it by Colonel Sibthorp and Mr. Trelawny, it was negatived by a majority of one hundred and thirty against twenty-two.

AFFAIRS OF INDIA.

During this session the policy of government in relation to the affairs of India became the subject of discussion on several occasions. On the 12th of February motions were brought forward in both houses for the thanks of parliament to Sir Charles Napier and the army employed in the operations of Scinde, which motions were agreed to unanimously. Soon after this an event occurred which produced a startling effect. On the 21st of April Sir Robert Peel, in answer to a question put to him by Mr. T. B. Macaulay, said, “I beg to state that, on Wednesday last, her Majesty’s government received a communication from the court of directors, that they had exercised the power which the law gives them, to recall at their will and pleasure the governor-general of India.” This announcement soon spread abroad; and in the house of lords, on the 29th of April, Lord Colchester addressed to the Duke of Wellington these questions:—“Whether the communication from the court of directors to government alleged any reason for the recall of the governor-general? If so, whether there was any objection to state such reason? and whether the reasons were considered satisfactory by government?” In reply, the noble duke stated that reasons had been given for the recall of the governor-general, but that those reasons had not been concurred in by her majesty’s government; nay, more, they remonstrated against the measure. The noble duke, in fact, roundly condemned the court of directors for taking such a step, pronouncing it to be the most indiscreet exercise of power he had ever known. Several discussions subsequently took place in both houses of parliament on the recall of Lord Ellenborough; and motions were moved for copies of the correspondence between the court of directors and her majesty’s government relative to this subject; but these motions were negatived, and the discussions led to no practical result. They were, in truth, only made the medium of giving utterance to party sentiments and opinions.

IRISH AFFAIRS.

The subject which gave rise to the most animated discussions in parliament this session was the ministerial policy towards Ireland; especially their conduct in reference to the trial of Mr. O’Connell and his associates. On the 13th of February, the Marquis of Normanby moved in the house of lords, a resolution condemnatory of the government administration of Irish affairs. After a very long and angry discussion, the debate was adjourned, and on the next evening was continued by Earl Fitzwilliam and Lord Monteagle on one side, and the Earls of Haddington and Ripon on the other. On a division, the motion was negatived by a majority of one hundred and seventy-five against seventy-eight.

In the house of commons, on the 13th, Lord John Russell, in a speech of three hours’ continuance, opened a discussion on the subject of Irish policy, which was protracted for nine evenings. The motion which he made on this occasion nominally aimed at the appointment of a committee of the whole house to consider the state of Ireland. The debate which ensued presented much sameness and repetition. On a division, Lord John Russell’s motion was negatived by a majority of three hundred and thirty-four against two hundred and twenty-five.

It had been announced in the speech from the throne that government would, in the present session, take up the question of the registration of voters in Ireland. In fulfilment of this announcement, Lord Eliot, early in April, introduced a bill into the house of commons for that purpose; leave was given to bring in the bill; but it was evidently so distasteful to the Irish members and their supporters, that, on the 1st of July, Sir Robert Peel announced that it was abandoned by government.

On the 9th of May Mr. Hume moved:—“That an humble address be presented to her majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to consider whether it would not be for the advantage of Ireland, and for the interest of the United Kingdom, to abolish the office of lord-lieutenant of Ireland.” Mr. Hume contended that this office was one of the principal causes of repeal agitation, and that by abolishing it peace would be restored to the country. His motion was seconded by Captain Bernai, and opposed by Lords John Russell and Eliot, Sir Robert Peel, and Captain Layard. Ultimately, Mr. Hume withdrew his motion. On the 11th of July Mr. Ward brought on his annual motion about the Irish church. On a division it was rejected by a majority of two hundred and seventy-four against one hundred and seventy-nine.

A measure of great importance to the Roman Catholic community in Ireland was introduced by government, and passed during this session; namely, a bill which had for its object the making of a provision for the better security and regulation of moneys settled upon charitable and religious trusts. This bill was first introduced in the house of lords, where it passed with very little opposition. Sir James Graham moved its second reading in the commons on the 29th of July. In making this motion, he explained the law as it then stood relative to the management and supervision of charitable bequests and donations in Ireland. The existing system was regulated by a statute passed at the beginning of the present century, by which a board was constituted for the government and administration of charitable trusts. This board consisted almost exclusively of Protestants; whereas nearly three-fourths of the bequests placed under its jurisdiction were Roman Catholic endowments. By the bill now proposed, it would be enacted that the master of the rolls, the chief baron of the exchequer, and the judges of the Prerogative Court, should be _ex officio_ members of the board; and that in the presence of them, or any of them, one or the other should preside, according to his rank—first, the master of the rolls; in his absence, the chief baron of the exchequer; or, in the absence of the other two, the judge of the prerogative court. The bill next provided that the crown should appoint ten commissioners, five of whom should be Protestants, and five Roman Catholics. By the sixth section it was further provided, with respect to matters concerning the doctrine, discipline, or constitution of the church of Rome—that if a question arose as to the _status_ or condition of any person who had a right, or claimed to have a right, under any of the deeds of bequest brought under the consideration of the commissioners, such question should be referred, if the claimant were a Roman Catholic, to the Roman Catholic commissioners only; and it was provided that they should grant a certificate of their decision, which certificate should be received as evidence. One of the principal objections to the existing law was removed by the tenth clause, which limited the power of the commissioners to apply donations and bequests according to the intention of the donor or donors. The thirteenth clause also obviated the existing difficulty under the statute of mortmain, which made bequests chargeable upon land for a given class of persons, or their successors. This clause would enable real or personal property, without limitation as to its amount, to be held in perpetuity, for building and maintaining chapels, for building and maintaining residences for the Roman Catholic clergy, or for the use of the priests for the time being, for the purpose of any particular charge. In conclusion, Sir James Graham said that he could only anticipate one objection to the bill on tire part of the Roman Catholics, and that arose from the peculiarity of their ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He believed they would object to the decision of any ecclesiastical matters relating to their church by persons who were not in holy orders of the church of Rome; but he would remind them that under the existing law, such matters might be brought before the supreme judicial tribunal of the country—the judge of that court, the lord-chancellor, being a Protestant. According to the present bill, however, such matters would be left to the decision of a board, composed of Protestants and Catholics equal in number. The bill was loudly condemned by Messrs. More, O’Ferral, Bellew, and Shiel; while, on the other hand, Lord Arundel thanked government for the conciliatory spirit it displayed. Mr. Hume said that the bill seemed to him to be framed in a spirit of peace, and he wished all the Irish grievances were met in the same feeling. The proposed tribunal was a fair and proper one, and he should be glad to see as good a one for the administration of English charities: there ought to be “justice to England.” The second reading was carried by a majority of seventy-one against five; and on the motion that the bill should be committed, Mr. M. J. O’Connell gave notice that he should in committee move amendments. The bill having been subsequently reported, and being moved for a third reading, Mr. Dominick Browne expressed a wish for its postponement. The Roman Catholic hierarchy, he said, was entirely opposed to it; although he admitted that he believed it to be proposed in a spirit of conciliation. He moved that the bill be read that day three months; but the amendment found no one to second it; and after a few observations from Mr. M. J. O’Connell, who now expressed himself in favour of it, the bill passed.

During this session Lord Beaumont, a Roman Catholic peer, brought in a bill for the abolition of a number of penal acts, for the most part obsolete, though still retained in the Irish statute-book. The lord-chancellor urged Lord Beaumont to abstain from pressing his bill, as government were about to revise the whole of the penal laws; but finding his lordship resolved to press the matter, he took the bill into his own hands. The measure having been amended by the lord-chancellor, was brought before the house of lords on the 30th of July. In explaining the various enactments which it was intended to repeal, Lord Lyndhurst said that the first was a statute of Elizabeth’s reign, directing a particular form of prayer to be used, under a penalty of three months’ imprisonment for a first offence, six months for a second, and for life for a third. The second act intended to be repealed punished the denial of the sovereign’s supremacy in ecclesiastical and religious matters: first, with forfeiture of goods and chattels; second, with the penalties of a premunire; and for a third offence, with the penalties of high-treason. Another act made reconcilement to the see of Rome high-treason; and imposed a fine of two hundred marks on every priest performing, and one hundred marks on every person hearing the ceremony. By another, a Jesuit remaining in England a certain number of days was made liable to be prosecuted for high-treason; and persons residing abroad for the purpose of being educated, who should not return within six months after proclamation to that effect, were also rendered liable to the penalties of high-treason. Other statutes imposed penalties on any Roman Catholic who should be found more than three miles distant from his abode; on parents who sent their children abroad to be educated; and for not going to church. Another act declared any one newly converted to the Roman Catholic faith, and his children, if educated in that faith, incapable of holding any place of trust or profit. A statute of William and Mary enacted that no Roman Catholic should come within ten miles of the metropolis, and forbade them to have any weapons of defence in their houses. By the same bill it was also provided that if they possessed a horse worth more than five pounds, it was liable to be forfeited and seized. The bill would also repeal the act of the 31st George III., which act was an extraordinary jumble of legislation: they had an act of Elizabeth which required a party to take a certain oath, and if he refused he was guilty of high-treason; but by the subsequent act they provided that if he took another oath, and a much milder one, he was free: yet if a man professing the Roman Catholic religion did not take either of the oaths, he would be guilty of high-treason, and liable to all the penalties which attached to that crime. The only “non-content” to this measure in the house of lords was the Bishop of London: and he only opposed it because government had taken it up at the eleventh hour, and without consulting the hierarchy. The second reading was moved in the house of commons on the 5th of August by Sir Robert Peel, who took occasion to explain that it did not do away with any security which had been taken for the established church by the act passed in 1829 for the relief of Roman Catholics; the acts to be repealed were mere dead letters, encumbering and discrediting the statute-book. Mr. Hawes requested to know whether, if obsolete statutes of a similar nature were to be found on the statute-book, applicable to the same or other denominations of Christians, government would be prepared to frame a measure for repealing them. Sir Robert Peel replied that he would not make any pledge upon the subject; but if there were any statutes which compelled a conscientious dissenter from the church of England, upon a heavy penalty, to attend divine service in that church, he could see no objection to its being erased from the statute-book. The bill then passed, and received the royal assent.

RESTRICTIONS ON LABOUR IN FACTORIES, ETC.

On the 5th of February Sir James Graham introduced a bill for the regulation of labour in factories. In explaining the proposed enactments, he said, that with respect to age, it was resolved that the term “child” should be defined to mean children between nine and thirteen, instead of eight and thirteen. Such children were not to be employed for more than six hours and a half each day, and were not to be employed in the forenoon and afternoon of the same day. In the existing law, “young persons” were defined to be persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen: he did not wish any alteration in this respect; but he should propose that such young persons should not be employed in any silk, cotton, wool, or flax manufactory, for any portion of the twenty-four hours, longer than from half-past five o’clock to seven in the summer, and from half-past six o’clock to eight in the winter:—thus making thirteen hours and a half each day, of which one hour and a half, should be allowed for meals and rest. In respect to females, they were not, under any circumstances, to work more than twelve hours. By this bill, moreover, the recovery of lost time, from the use of steam and water, would not be allowed, except where the power used was water-power only: no person so employed was to work more than thirteen hours. Inspectors would be empowered to notify to mill-owners whenever they observed that any portion of their machinery was dangerous, and that in their opinion it required to be cased or covered up: and if after such notification any accident should occur injurious to any of the workmen employed, then the inspector would be empowered to institute a suit for recovering compensation for such injury, and the damages awarded should be given to the injured party. As to education, all that the bill would do, would be to give the child from eight to thirteen years old time for receiving instruction: he was not to be employed more than six hours and half daily—the remaining portions of the day _might_ be devoted to education. Leave was given to bring in the bill, and the house went into committee upon it on the 15th of March. On one of the clauses being proposed which fixed the limitations of the hours of labour, Lord Ashley, after forcibly depicting the effects of factory labour, the injury it inflicted on those employed in it as the system now existed, both physically, mentally, and morally, moved that the night, instead of being computed from eight o’clock in the evening, should be computed from six o’clock. This amendment gave rise to an animated and earnest debate, which lasted two nights; and on a division, it was carried by a majority of one hundred and seventy-nine against one hundred and seventy. The proposal of government having been thus negatived, Sir James Graham said it would not be consistent with his duty to drop the measure at the present stage. On the eighth clause, Lord Ashley would have to move the substitution of “ten” for “twelve” hours, and the question could then be considered in a more substantive form. On the next day Lord Ashley said that it was his intention to make this proposition; and if affirmed, he should then prepare a clause, enacting that the present duration of labour, twelve hours, should continue till the 1st of October, 1844; the period should then fall to eleven hours, to continue so till the 1st of October, 1846, when the period of ten hours should commence. In pursuance of this intention, on the 22nd, when the eighth clause was taken into consideration, which provided that no young person should be employed daily more than twelve hours, Lord Ashley moved an amendment, substituting “ten” for “twelve.” A contest followed this motion; but the debate which ensued was characterized by very little novelty, and on a division it was rejected by a majority of one hundred and eighty-eight against one hundred and eighty-one. At the same time the clause for twelve hours was rejected by one hundred and eighty-six against one hundred and eighty-three. Sir J. Graham then moved that the chairman report progress; stating that he should take until the following Monday, the 25th, to consider the course proper for him to adopt under these circumstances. On the 25th Sir James Graham announced that government had resolved to abandon the bill in order to bring in a new one. This was not effected without considerable opposition; but ministers finally triumphed, and leave was given to bring in a new bill on the 27th. The new bill stood for the second reading on the 22nd of April; previous to which Lord Ashley announced that he was determined to move, on the third reading of the bill, the addition of certain clauses, for the purpose of carrying out the amendments which he had proposed in the former bill. On the 22nd, the second reading of the bill having been moved, with an understanding that the main question was to be considered at a subsequent stage, Mr. T. Duncombe said that in agreeing to such a course Lord Ashley had surrendered the whole case. He now merely proposed to take a flying shot at the bill when it was leaving the house after the third reading: if that shot missed, the bill would be gone before he could fire a second barrel. Under these circumstances, on the order of the day for going into committee of the whole house, he would move that the bill should be referred to a select committee above stairs. This motion was made, but it was rejected, and the bill passed through committee without alteration. The debate on the third reading commenced on the 10th of May, and was continued for two nights by adjournment. The new bill enacted that no young person should be employed more than “twelve” hours daily, as in the abandoned measure: but Lord Ashley, according to his notice, moved on this occasion a clause restricting the hours of labour to eleven from October, 1844. On a division, however, this amendment was negatived by a majority of two hundred and ninety-seven against one hundred and fifty-nine, and the bill then passed the commons. In the house of lords this controverted bill passed without much discussion.

THE CORN-LAWS AND FREE-TRADE QUESTION.

During this session, as Sir Robert Peel had proclaimed at its commencement the intention of government to maintain the recent settlement of the corn-laws, the exertions of the free-trade party in parliament were confined to two or three desultory motions, rather indicating their protest against the existing system than tending to practical results. On the 12th of March Mr. Cobden brought the corn-law question before the house of commons, in the shape of a motion for a committee to inquire into the effects of protective duties on agricultural labourers and tenants. This motion gave rise to a considerable debate, but it was negatived by a majority of two hundred and twenty-four against one hundred and thirty-three. About the same time Mr. Ricardo moved, “That an humble address be presented to her majesty, praying that her majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions to her servants not to enter into any negociation with foreign powers which would make any contemplated alterations of the tariffs of other countries; and humbly expressing to her majesty the opinion of this house that the great object of relieving the commercial intercourse between this country and foreign nations from all injurious restrictions will be best promoted by regulating our own customs’ duties, as may be most suitable to the financial and commercial interests of this country, without reference to the amount of duties which foreign powers may think it expedient for their own interests to levy on British goods.” In advocating this motion, Mr. Ricardo dwelt on the inutility of all our recent commercial diplomacy; and contended that our objects might be as effectually attained by judicious legislation with respect to our imposts, as by intricate negociations with respect to exports. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ewart, and supported by Sir J. Hanmer and Mr. Hume; but there not being forty members present, the house was counted out. Mr. Villiers brought forward his annual motion against the corn-laws on the 25th of June. He moved:—“That it appears by a recent census, that the people of this country are rapidly increasing in number. That it is in evidence before this house that a large proportion of her majesty’s subjects are insufficiently provided for with the first necessaries of life. That, nevertheless, a corn-law is in force, which restricts the supply of food, and thereby lessens its abundance. That any such restriction, having for its object to impede the free purchase of an article upon which depends the subsistence of the community is indefensible in principle, injurious in operation, and ought to be abolished. That it is therefore expedient that the act 5 & 6 Vic. c. 14, shall be repealed forthwith.” The debate on this motion occupied two evenings. Mr. Villiers supported it on the same ground which had been traversed by former argument on the same subject. By the facts and arguments which he adduced, he contended that he established these positions:—“That the supply of food had been deficient; that great inconvenience had resulted; and that the protective system had led to the cultivation of the land in a most slovenly manner.” Mr. Gladstone, on the part of government, announced his intention of calling upon the house to give a direct negative to the original resolutions. Lord John Russell said that the motion placed him in a difficult position: he could not vote for the total and immediate repeal of the protective duty, neither could he assent to maintain the existing corn-law. Sir Robert Peel, who spoke towards the close of the debate, said that the performance of the evening had been for the benefit of the company which usually performed at Covent Garden Theatre. Mr. Villiers, in closing the debate, said, that there was nothing for him to reply to, since no one had controverted his arguments. The speech which Sir Robert Peel had delivered would please the agriculturists; but he had made the same sort of speech for them in 1839, and had thrown them overboard afterwards, because the state of the season and the distress of the people had made it indispensable to give some relief to the country. He predicted that the same thing would happen again. The motion was rejected by a majority of three hundred and twenty-eight against one hundred and twenty-four.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

At this time, in consequence of the great abundance of capital in tire market, there was a general impression that the time had arrived when a considerable saving might be effected to the country, by a reduction in those stocks which bore the highest rate of interest. Early in the present session, indeed, it was discovered that government contemplated a plan for reducing the three and a half per cent, consols, which, at the commencement of the year, had reached the price of 102 ½. This plan was developed by Mr. Goulburn, in a lucid and able speech, on the 8th of March. He was about to ask the house, he said, to deal with the largest sum for which any government had been called on to propose a regulation, being no less than £250,000,000 of money. Never, he continued, was there a period when capital, seeking an investment, was so plentiful, and the rate of interest so low as at present; and there was nothing in the circumstances of the times which gave any reason to suppose that this state of things would prove transient. The condition of the public finances also was favourable to the proposed object; for, thanks to the firmness of the house of commons, the revenue once more exceeded the expenditure. In explaining this measure, he said that he was not disposed to purchase an immediate relief by increasing the burdens of succeeding times. He had, therefore, rejected the idea of lowering the present interest by augmenting the capital of the debt. His intention was to propose the conversion of the three and a half into a three and a quarter per cent, stock, which should continue until October, 1854, after which period the interest should be reduced to three per cent., with a guarantee that for twenty years there should be no further reduction. By this measure the public, from October, 1844, to 1854, would save £625,000 per annum, which saving, from and after 1854, would become £1,250,000 per annum. Mr. Goulburn also proposed to make such arrangement that, from next October, the payments of interests would be nearly equalized in each quarter. His speech was received with loud demonstrations of approbation from both sides of the house; and the resolution being put, was carried unanimously. The bill brought in, to give it effect, passed rapidly through its stages in the house of commons; and it was carried through the upper house with equal unanimity and facility, all being convinced that it was a sound and practical measure, and honest withal to the public creditor.

The annual financial statement for this year was made on the 24th of April, when Mr. Goulburn had the satisfaction of showing that the receipts exceeded the expenditure. There had been an increase of amount in all the estimates: in the customs, the excise, the stamps, the taxes, the post-office, and the property-tax. The estimate of the total revenue was £50,150,000; the sum received £52,835,134, showing an increase of about £2,700,000. The expenditure also was less than the estimate by £650,000; and the total result was that, instead of the estimated surplus of £700,000, the gross surplus amounted to £4,165,000. From this, however, there was the deficiency of last year to be taken, namely, £2,749,000; and when this was discharged there was a net surplus of £1,400,000 over the expenditure of the year ending April, 1844. The total estimate of the revenue for the year following was £51,790,000, and the expenditure £49,643,170, whereby an apparent surplus of £3,146,000, or, making a deduction for a portion of the debt to be discharged next year, £2,376,000. Mr. Goulburn proceeded to say that this balance having been anticipated, he had been pressed from all quarters to reduce various taxes. He would gladly have done so, but the source of the surplus was not permanent: it was mainly the income-tax which was to be considered next year, in order to determine whether it should be prolonged, as had originally been proposed, for two years beyond the first. If other taxes were now hastily reduced before the operation of the tariff could be known, the house might have no alternative next year but to continue this tax. It was under these circumstances that he resisted large reductions; but he thought there were some articles upon which remission might be afforded, with a fair prospect of making up revenue by an increased consumption, and with a probability of increasing the consumption of other articles. The items which he proposed to select for such remission were glass, vinegar, currants, coffee, marine insurance, and wool, upon the aggregate of which the amount of duty to be remitted would be £387,000 per annum. Later in the session he intended to take the sugar duties into consideration; when he should recommend that England should admit, at a differential duty of ten shillings per cwt., the sugar of those states which do not cultivate that commodity by slave-labour. After considerable discussion, in which several members recommended the reduction or abolition of other taxes, the motion of Mr. Goulburn was agreed to; and the customs duties bill, and other bills founded on his proposition, subsequently passed through both houses with unanimity.

SUGAR-DUTIES BILL, ETC.

The great conflict of parties was reserved for the sugar duties. The chancellor of the exchequer’s views on this subject were propounded on the 3rd of June, when, after delivering a lucid and able speech on the sugar duties at present existing, and explaining his intended alterations in those duties, he moved:—“That towards raising the supply granted to her majesty, the several duties now payable on sugar be further continued for a time to be limited, save and except that from and after the 10th day of November next, there shall be charged on brown Muscovado, or clayed sugar, certified to be the growth of China, Java, or Manilla, or of any other foreign country, the sugar of which her majesty in council shall have declared to be admissible as not being the produce of slave-labour, £114s. the cwt., together with the additional duty of £5 per cent, on the afore-mentioned rate. That from and after the 10th day of November next her majesty be authorized by order in council to give effect to the provisions of any treaty now in force, which binds her majesty to admit sugar, the produce of a foreign country, at the same duties as are imposed on sugar the produce of the most favoured nation.” Lord John Russell had announced that he would propose an amendment for including slave-grown sugar in that foreign produce which was to be admitted at diminished duties; but Mr. Goulburn said he could not believe that the house would consent to throw away the whole of that large amount which the country had recently paid for the abolition of slavery, by creating, through a new rise of prices, an additional stimulus to the importation of slaves into the foreign colonics. Lord John Russell, however, combated the views of government at great length; after which he moved, as an amendment, “That towards raising the supply granted to her majesty, instead of the duties of customs now payable on sugar, there shall be charged on brown, or Muscovado sugar, the produce of any foreign country, the sum of £1 14s. per cwt.” In support of his motion the noble lord argued, that the time was come when the sugar duties ought to undergo a full consideration. It was proposed, he said, to admit the sugar of Java and Manilla as free-grown, though the policy of these countries was questionable in point of personal freedom; but the sugar of Porto Rico was excluded, because our conscience was shocked at the notion that some part of it might have been produced by slaves. But what was thus forbidden directly, was allowed circuitously; we were willing to refine and export this slave-grown sugar, and to take the hemp and tallow of Russia in its stead, which seemed to be an easy way of letting down our consciences. This savoured of hypocrisy. If the United States were permitted to send us their sugars, which they would do to the extent of 50,000 tons per annum, they would take slave-grown sugar into their own consumption to the same extent; and to that whole extent, therefore, would give encouragement to slave-grown sugar. No implicit faith, moreover, was to be placed in the certificates of the Americans. Messrs. Gladstone and Baring defended the government measure; and Messrs. Hume, Labouchere, and M. P. Stewart opposed it. On a division Lord John Russell’s amendment was negatived by one hundred and ninety-seven against one hundred and twenty-eight. A few days afterwards, a bill founded on the chancellor of the exchequer’s resolutions was brought in, and was read a second time without discussion. But the most critical crisis for ministers had yet to be encountered. On the 14th of June, the house having resolved itself into committee on the sugar-duties bill, Mr. P. Miles objected to the change proposed by ministers in the old amount of protection as a measure which was not expedient, and not final in its settlement; wherefore he moved as an amendment, “That, from the 10th of November next, the duty on British colonial sugar should be. 20s.; on the sugars of China, Java, and Manilla, 30s.; with a duty of 34s. upon the foreign sugars, when imported at a certain degree of refinement, and with an addition, as usual, of five per cent, upon the whole.” This amendment was seconded by Mr. H. Baillie, who described the measure of government as causing general dissatisfaction; and asserted that, while it violated the principle of refusing encouragement to the foreign slave-trade, it gave but partial advantages to the British people. A long discussion took place, in which many members took part; and on a division government was defeated by a majority of two hundred and forty-one against two hundred and twenty-one. The committee then adjourned to the 17th; on which day Sir Robert Peel rose to put the house in possession of the course which government intended now to pursue. After explaining the nature of the sugar duties, and their views in the proposed alterations, and asserting that he believed a concurrence between the friends and the opponents of ministers had been concerted in the late division, he said the course which government would now take, and on which all members would be free, who had not engaged to vote for Mr. Miles’s proposal of 20s., would be to propose, as an amendment, that 24s. should be the duty. They wished it to be known in the countries east of the Cape what the intentions of government were. Sir Robert Peel went on to explain the reasons why he did not content himself with merely proposing a renewal of the present sugar duties; after which, he said, that he was not insensible to the impediments which had been opposed to the progress of ministerial legislation. In certain of their measures, government had failed to obtain the approbation of some whose support they valued: but they were not prepared to purchase that approbation at the price of refraining from the policy which they deemed essential to the welfare of the country. They had felt it their duty to make a relaxation of duties; in that course they held it their duty to persevere: and he was anxious that on so important an occasion there should be no deception and no reserve. Lord John Russell considered that the proposal of Sir Robert Peel was neither more nor less than that the house should retract its former vote, and thus disgrace itself with the country. For his own part he was not much moved by their threats of quitting office, as he had not been one of the general supporters of the government. He justified the degree of concert which had taken place between Mr. Miles and the opposition; and asked if there had not also been a combination on his side. In conclusion, he warned the house that if they gave Sir Robert Peel the victory on this occasion, they would henceforth be wholly in his power. Mr. P. Miles denied that the conspiracy existed of which the right honourable baronet had spoken, and expressed his regret that he intended to persevere with his bill: he should have thought he would have been justified in paying due deference to the decision of a majority of that house, and postponing his measure till another session. Messrs. Cochrane and Labouchere opposed; and Sir Howard Douglas, and Messrs. Kemble and Warburton expressed their intention to vote with ministers. Mr. D’Israeli was not a little lost in wonder when he heard the threatened resignation of ministers; and facetiously congratulated the administration and the country, that instead of resigning, the right honourable baronet had simply moved an amendment. Several other members took part in the debate; and on a division Mr. Miles’s motion was negatived this time by a majority of two hundred and fifty-five against two hundred and thirty-three; after which Sir Robert Peel’s amendment, that 24s. and 84s. should be inserted, was agreed to. In committee further discussion occurred, and several amendments ‘were moved; but they were all negatived and the bill finally passed the commons.

The principal debate in the house of lords took place on the 2nd of July, when Lord Dalhousie moved the third reading. In his speech, the noble lord showed the prejudicial effects of the emancipation of the slaves in the West Indies on the supply of labour, and the consequent diminished production of sugar. This diminution had increased the price; and it became requisite to provide a supply from other quarters to answer the increase of demands. It was for this purpose that the present measure was introduced. By the act, which it was intended to supersede, all foreign sugar was subjected to a duty of 63s. per cwt. and five per cent.; and British sugar to a duty of only 24s., and five per cent. This bill proposed to leave the duty on sugar, the produce of the British possessions, as it then stood, namely, 24s. and five per cent.; but it proposed to effect an important alteration with respect to foreign sugar, by allowing the sugar of China, Java, and Manilla to be admitted at a duty of 34s. and five per cent., such sugar being the produce of free labour; and it also proposed to give to her majesty in council a power to admit, under peculiar circumstances, sugar, the produce of other countries with which we had reciprocal treaties, such being-certified to be _bona fide_ the sugar of those countries, and the produce of free labour. The bill was opposed by the Marquis of Lansdowne, Earl St. Vincent, and Lord Monteagle; and supported by the Earl of Radnor, and Lords Ashburton and Brougham. After a few words from Earl Dalhousie, in reply, it was read a third time, and passed without a division.

BANK CHARTER AND BANKING REGULATIONS.

In the speech at the opening of parliament, her majesty had alluded to measures about to be brought forward for the regulation of the Bank of England, and the administration of banking concerns in general. On the 6 th of May, in accordance with this announcement, the house having resolved itself into a committee upon the Bank charter, Sir Robert Peel explained these measures. The act of 1833, he said, had empowered the government to notify to the Bank, before August, 1844, that parliament meant to deal anew with the subject; and government now proposed that parliament should exercise that power of notification. The right honourable baronet went on to consider the principle of value. What, he asked, was a pound, and what the engagement to pay a pound? He contended that the word meant more than an abstraction—that it meant a certain weight of precious metal; and the engagement of a maker of a promissory note was to pay on demand a definite amount of that metal and fineness. A real measure of value in this just sense had existed till the year 1797, when bank paper became issuable without being convertible into metal. For some years the subject attracted little attention, until the bullion committee of 1810 propounded a sounder theory. This theory, however, was unsatisfactory to the people at large, and a notion became general that a pound was merely an abstraction. Some writers had argued, he continued, that gold was unfit to be a particular medium, because it was an article of commerce. There were several theories upon this subject. For instance, Mr. Ricardo conceived that paper should be convertible only when the notes tendered for specie should reach to upwards of a certain high amount; but he preferred, to adhere to the present system of a single gold standard, and a five pound note convertible into gold. The right honourable baronet next proceeded to state his views respecting the principle for the regulation of a paper currency, making a distinction between bills of exchange and those promissory notes, which, being payable to bearer, served the direct purposes of money. He next stated the outline of the practical measures he was prepared to recommend. He remarked: “I propose, with respect to the Bank of England, that there should be an actual separation of the two departments of issue and banking—that there should be different offices to each, and a different system of account. I likewise propose that to the issue department should be transferred the whole amount of bullion now in the possession of the Bank, and that the issue of bank-notes should hereafter take place on two foundations: first, on a definite amount of securities, and, after that, exclusively upon that of bullion; so that the action of the public would, in this latter respect, govern the amount of the circulation. There will be no power in the Bank to issue notes on deposits and discount of bills; and the issue department will have to place to the credit of the banking department the amount of notes which the issue department by law will be entitled to issue. With respect to the banking business of the Bank, I propose that it should be governed on precisely the same principles as would regulate any other body dealing with Bank of England notes. The fixed amount of securities on which I propose that the Bank of England should issue notes is £14,000,000; and the whole of the remainder of the circulation is to be issued exclusively on the foundation of bullion. I propose that there should be a complete and periodical publication of the accounts of the Bank of England, both of the banking and issue departments, as tending to increase the credit of the Bank, and to prevent panic and needless alarm. I would, therefore, enact by law that there should be returned to the government a weekly account of the issue of notes by the Bank of England; of the amount of bullion; of the fluctuations of the bullion; of the amount of the deposits; and, in short, an account of every transaction, both in the issue department and the banking department of the Bank of England; and that the government should forthwith publish, unreservedly and weekly, a full account of the circulation of the Bank.” Sir Robert Peel next explained the regulations proposed by him for private banks. The general rule, he said, would be to draw a distinction between the privilege of issue, and the conduct of banking business: the object being to limit competition, but to make the great change with as little detriment as possible to private interests. From this time no new bank of issue would be constituted; but all those existing would be allowed to retain the privilege, upon condition that they do not exceed the present amount, to be calculated upon the average of a term of years. This would enable the Bank of England to know the extent of issue with which it would have to compete. While the issues would be restricted, banking business would be facilitated; the privilege of suing and being sued, at present withheld from joint-stock banks, would be accorded; the law of partnership would be so altered, that while the acts of an individual director, or otherwise authorized partner, would bind the whole, the acts of an unauthorized partner would not do so; and joint-stock banks in London, at present forbidden to accept bills for a date of less than six months, would be placed on an equality with other banks, and allowed to accept bills of any amount and any date. If the last privilege were abused by the circulation of small bills, he would then appeal to parliament to correct the evil. All joint-stock banks would be required to publish a full and complete periodical list of all partners and directors, and banks of issue to publish an account of their issues. Joint-stock banks would also be prohibited from having shares of less than £100, £50, or some fixed amount; and no new joint-stock bank should be constituted except upon application to a government department, on registration of prospectuses, and probably registration of shares and paid-up capital. Reverting to the proposition respecting the Bank of England, Sir Robert Peel remarked:—“It is to be allowed issues to the extent of a fixed amount of securities, £14,000,000. The existing loan of £11,000,000 to government, at three per cent., will be continued, there appearing no advantage in change.