Chapter LV: {victoria. 1844–1845} (2)

“The remaining £3,000,000 will be based upon exchequer bills and other securities, over which the Bank will have entire control; with the power, however, of limiting its issues on that portion of the securities, to restore the exchanges, and so forth: there could hardly be a case in which the securities could safely be diminished to less than £11,000,000. The Bank will also be allowed to extend its issues beyond the £14,000,000 on emergency, but only with the assent of three members of the government; and in such case the whole of the net profit on any amount beyond the £14,000,000 will revert to government. A case might arise such as the sudden extinction of £2,000,000 of the provincial currency, which would need an extension of the Bank currency to fill the gap. Without seeing any great advantage in the ‘legal tender’ clause, it is proposed to continue it, in order to facilitate the circulation of bank paper. The pecuniary arrangements between the Bank and government have to be explained, The Bank retains the privilege of issuing notes on securities to the amount of £14,000,000, at three per cent., which would yield £420,000. From this there are deductions to be made. The total cost of the Bank on an issue of £20,000,000, has been estimated at £117,000; but take it at about £113,000, which, taken from £420,000, leaves £307,000. There is then to be deducted about £60,000 composition with the Stamp-Office for the privilege of issuing notes. Then there is about £24,000 paid by the Bank to those bankers who undertake to issue Bank of England notes: taking-one per cent, on a payment of three per cent. The result, after subtracting these items, is £220,000 derived from the issuing of notes. Hitherto the Bank has paid £120,000 to government for its privileges: its privileges are now to be affected; but on the other hand increased stability is to be given to its banking business; and I propose that in future the Bank should still pay that sum, besides the £60,000 for the composition with the Stamp-Office, making in all about £180,000. Government pay to the Bank £240,000 for the management of the public debt; and the difference between the two last sums would be the balance that government would have to pay over to the Bank.” After stating that the present measure would not be extended to Ireland and Scotland, Sir Robert Peel concluded with moving a string of resolutions which embodied the above propositions. His scheme met with general approbation; and on the 20th of May, the house having gone into committee on the resolutions, Sir Robert Peel made some further explanations upon points in the detail of the measure. He would suppose, he said, that the circulation in the country was £8,000,000; that the country banks would desire, by agreement with the Bank of England, to reduce this by one-half; and that it might become necessary for that establishment to make fresh issues in order to supply the vacuum. The cases then in which he would allow the Bank to do so, would be those of a country bank failing, or closing, or commuting its own circulation for that of the Bank of England. With respect to the question, whether the bullion on which the Bank of England was to issue its notes should include silver, he proposed that it should; but without departing from the great principle that there must be but one standard, and that standard a gold one; all he meant was, that if a party brought silver to the Bank, the Bank might, within a certain limit, give its notes in exchange for it. If this were not permitted, the Bank having no interest in keeping a supply of silver, would probably cease to keep it; but it was important for the country to have access to such a supply, not only for domestic circulation, but with reference to foreign commerce. He proposed, therefore, to permit an issue of notes upon silver bullion, in the proportion of one-fifth of the whole, or one part in silver to four in gold. With respect to banks of issue, he would save them their circulation until parliament should make further order, and he would compute that circulation upon the average of its amount from the 6th May, 1842, to the 6th May, 1844, requiring henceforth a weekly publication of it. Where one bank took the business of another, the benefit of the averages of the extinguished bank should be given in the circulation of the surviving bank. If a bank should increase its branches, it would not be allowed to increase its total issues. If private banks should coalesce, the consolidated concern, being still a private bank, should be permitted to retain the benefit of the circulation of all the component banks, but a change of character would not be permitted: joint-stock banks would not be authorized to buy up the circulation of private banks. Sir Robert Peel next explained the way in which he intended that the new plan should operate with respect to those banks which had been issuing Bank of England notes, and announced that the Bank of England was prepared to enter into negociations with other banks for arrangements under which its notes should be circulated by them. He concluded by adverting to some exceptions which had been taken to some parts of his measure, in doing which he showed that they were founded upon safe and just principles. After a brief discussion, the resolutions were passed, and the second reading of the bill founded upon them was moved on the 13th of June. Mr. Hawes moved as an amendment:—“That no sufficient evidence has been laid before the house to justify the proposed interference with banks of issue in the management of their circulation.” This motion was supported by Messrs. Hastie, Woolehouse, C. Buller, Gisborne, and Williams; and opposed by the chancellor of the exchequer, Sirs R. Peel and W. Clay, and Messrs. Hume and Warburton. On a division it was negatived by a majority of one hundred and eighty-five against thirty; and after some further discussions in committee, in which some members attempted to introduce modifications in the bill, all the original propositions were carried, and, with the exception of a small section, with the general concurrence of the house. In the house of lords it received very little discussion. The first and second readings passed _sub silentio_; and it went through committee without any division: the Earl of Radnor and Lord Ashburton only expressing fears of its practical working.

DISSENTERS’ CHAPELS BILL.

During this session a bill was brought into the house of lords by the lord-chancellor for confirming the possession of religious endowments in the hands of dissenters, and arresting such litigation as had recently taken place in the case of Lady Hewley’s charities, which were endowed by her for Calvinistic Independents, but which had gradually passed to the Unitarians, whose occupancy was successfully opposed. The lord-chancellor’s bill proposed to terminate all further legal controversy respecting the right to voluntary endowments connected with dissenting chapels, by vesting the property in the religious body in whose hands it had been for twenty years. The bill was opposed in the house of lords by the Bishops of London and Exeter, the Earl of Winchilsea, and Lords Kenyon, Teynham, and Mountcashel; but it was carried by a large majority. Before it came under discussion in the house of commons a vigorous opposition was manifested against it, especially by the Trinitarian dissenters. Public meetings were held, and petitions were sent up from all quarters against the obnoxious proposition. Under these circumstances, on the 6th of June, when the second reading of the bill was moved, the attorney-general explained its objects, which, he said, had been misunderstood. The alarm which this bill had created, namely, that it would have the effect of encouraging Unitarian doctrines, he contended was wholly unfounded. An act had been passed in 1813, legalizing the foundation of schools and chapels for the benefit of the Unitarians, and placing them upon the same footing as other Protestant dissenters. The question then arose respecting foundations which might have been made before 1813, when the Unitarians were excepted out of the Toleration Act: namely, would they or ought they to take from that body, which was now legal, and could legally endow chapels, that which they possessed, because it was given them before the year 1813? The first clause of the bill put not only Unitarians, but all Protestant dissenters on the same footing; it rendered the toleration act retrospective. The second clause, he continued, related to dissenting chapels only; not to general charitable foundations. By the present law, the will of the donor must be binding; but it was not to be assumed, in the case of every religious charity, that it was founded for a particular sect, even though the donor held the doctrine of that sect. It was said, that the bill would encourage trustees to violate their trusts, and hand over the property for purposes not intended by the donor. It could do no such thing. Dissenting chapels were thus founded:—Congregations of dissenters wishing to establish places of meeting and chapels for worship, formed together voluntary associations, which associations subscribed funds, purchased the land, and built the chapels. In the first instance these chapels were vested in trustees; but he was told that so little had the trustees to do with the arrangement or control of these chapels, that in the great majority of cases when the original trustees died, no fresh ones were appointed to succeed them: the congregation relying upon possession. In this country every question of private right was decided upon usage; twenty or thirty years’ possession prevailed against both the crown and the church. Why then should it not be applied to the property in dissenters’ chapels? He was told that the consequence might be, that property now possessed by Presbyterians or other dissenters would in the lapse of time fall into the hands of the Unitarians. How could it be so? By the bill the usage must be that of the congregation. Notwithstanding this explanation, the bill was strenuously opposed in the commons by Sir Kobert Inglis, who moved that it should be read a second time that day six months, and by other members of the house, who looked upon it as outraging and insulting the Christian feeling of the country. On a division the amendment of Sir Robert Inglis was negatived by a majority of three hundred and seven against one hundred and seven. The house then went into committee on the bill, and having made some unimportant amendments to it; it passed and was sent up to the lords, where it again became the subject of discussion. It was opposed in its progress by the Bishop of London, who moved “that the amendments be taken into consideration that day three months,” but this was negatived by two hundred and two against forty-one, and the bill then passed.

SEES OF BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH.

During this session the Earl of Powis renewed his proposition for repealing so much of the act of the 6th and 7th William IV. as related to the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. In Ins speech the noble lord laid great stress on the numerous petitions from every county in North Wales, and from many in South Wales and England, as testifying the unanimous feeling pervading the clergy throughout both countries and all classes in Wales against the suppression of one of those ancient bishoprics. On its second reading, the measure was opposed by the Duke of Wellington and the Archbishop of Canterbury; and supported by the Bishops of St. Davids, Lincoln, Exeter, London, and Salisbury, and the Earls of Winchilsea and Harrowby. On a division, it was carried by a majority of forty-nine against thirty-seven; but though the second reading was thus carried, a difficulty arose in another quarter, which frustrated the endeavours of the friends of North Wales to preserve the integrity of its episcopate. On the motion for its third reading, the Duke of Wellington announced that the bill was one which touched the prerogative of the crown, and that he was not authorized to give her majesty’s consent to its further progress. The manner in which the question of the crown’s prerogative arose in this case was explained by the lord-chancellor. His lordship remarked, that during the vacancy of a see, the temporalities belonged to the crown; and any alterations in a see, therefore, affected the pecuniary interests of the crown; and there could be no doubt that where the pecuniary interests of the crown were concerned, its consent was necessary. He doubted whether he was authorized in putting a question affecting the royal prerogative without the consent of her majesty; and he suggested the appointment of a committee to search for precedents. A committee was appointed, and under these circumstances Lord Powis announced his determination to withdraw the bill, stating at the same time his conviction that the matter would not rest where it was. He believed that during the whole period the house of Hanover had been on the throne there was no precedent to be found to sanction the present course adopted by government. There was no measure that parliament had expressed a wish for them to consider, in which the crown had introduced its authority to prevent the further consideration of that measure.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES OF THE SESSION.

In the course of the session there were several acts passed of great utility without any prominent discussion. One of the most important of these was an act for the regulation of railways, which was brought in by Mr. Gladstone, and which embodied a variety of enactments designed to protect the public against the injurious effects of monopoly and combination, by vesting in the government a controlling power over such companies as should thereafter come to solicit powers from parliament, and a right of intervention for the reduction of charges and tolls whenever the profits of a railway should exceed the maximum of ten per cent, on its capital. The act also contained salutary regulations for securing economy and comfort in travelling to the poorer classes. Another act passed contained provisions of practical importance for the regulation of joint-stock companies. The main object of this measure was to protect the public against fictitious and delusive schemes, by requiring from all joint-stock companies the observance of certain conditions for the purpose of ascertaining their real character, and subjecting them to an efficient responsibility. There was to be a system of registration under a proper superintendence, whereby the names and descriptions of the projectors, and the particular nature and objects of the undertaking were required to be enrolled at an office established for that purpose. Upon compliance with these regulations, certain privileges were to be accorded to the company, and some anomalies and inconveniences heretofore existing removed. Reports were also to be made annually to parliament by an officer to be appointed under the act, relating to such companies as should have come within its provisions during the year. A third Act remodelled the entire system of turnpike-road management in South Wales, the abuses of which had given rise to the Rebecca riots. The leading principle of this measure was the consolidation of trusts, the debts of those existing being paid off by a system of arbitration, to be conducted by three commissioners appointed by government; the money required for this purpose being lent by the treasury, and secured on the rates of the several counties. The consolidation having been effected, all the roads in each county were to be administered by a now executive body, consisting partly of _ex-officio_ members, partly of magistrates, and partly of ratepayers. A further alteration was made this session in the original poor-law amendment act, the principal feature of which was an alteration in the enactments of the statute of 1835, relating to the maintenance of illegitimate children. By this alteration, a more efficient mode of obtaining from the father a provision for his child’s maintenance was placed in the power of the mother, by means of a proceeding in which she herself was entitled to make the application, and not, as under the original law, the officers of the parish: more stringent remedies were also substituted for enforcing the remedy against the putative father than had before existed. Towards the close of the session, repeated discussions of an animated nature took place in both houses of parliament, on the subject of a petition which was presented by Mr. Thomas Duncombe, from Serafino Calderara, Joseph Mazzini, W. J. Linton, and William Lovett, complaining that their letters had been opened at the post-office. Mr. Duncombe, in the commons, and the Earl of Radnor in the lords, moved for committees of inquiry, which were ultimately appointed; and these committees made their reports during the session; from which reports it appeared that the warrants of the secretary of state had only been issued in peculiar emergencies; and that the cases in which his power had been exercised formed a small annual average, and did not amount to an invasion of private correspondence, which the assailants of government had represented. No other result arose out of the conflicts upon this subject than a bill introduced by Lord Radnor, in the house of lords, for the abolition of the power complained of; but this bill did not proceed beyond the first reading.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by commission on the 5th of September. The speech announced that her majesty had given her cordial assent to the bill for regulating the issue of bank-notes; adverted to some discussions which had taken place with the government of the king of the French on events calculated to interrupt the friendly relations of the two countries, but which danger had been averted; congratulated the houses on the improvement which had taken place in the condition of manufactures and commerce; and expressed high satisfaction at the spirit of loyalty and cheerful obedience to the law manifested in all parts of her majesty’s kingdom. The commissioners concluded:—“We are commanded by her majesty to assure you that when you shall be called upon to resume the discharge of your parliamentary functions, you may place entire reliance on the cordial co-operation of her majesty in your endeavours to improve the social condition and to promote the happiness and contentment of her people.” Thus ended this important session—a session signalized in the addition to the statute-book of severed important measures, conceived in a safe and judicious spirit of reform, well suited to the circumstances of the country and to the temper of the age.

THE STATE OF INDIA.

The event of chief interest connected with the present year was the recall of Lord Ellenborough, the governor-general, by the unanimous vote of the court of directors. This subject, as noticed in a previous page, gave rise to discussion in both houses of parliament. What were the real motives of the directors of the East India Company in exercising their right of recalling a governor-general, which from non-use had almost become obsolete, and in thus acting in direct opposition to the views and wishes of her majesty’s government have never been fully developed; and the public have therefore been driven to conjecture on the subject. The most probable opinion, perhaps, may be, that the directors were offended at his evident mania for military achievements. Throughout the whole of his administration he showed his desire of conquest; and even when he left India he did not scruple to say, at a farewell entertainment given him by the military society of Calcutta, that the only regret he felt in leaving India was that of being separated from the army; and that the most interesting period of his life was that which he had passed in cantonments and camps. Another cause of offence may have been derived from his proclamations, which were offensive to good taste, and which justly exposed him to ridicule. His behaviour towards the directors also was by no means judicious; for, although he had bound himself to attend exclusively to their orders, he was by no means an obedient servant. But whatever may have been the directors’ motives, Lord Ellenborough was recalled from his government, and Sir Henry Hardinge was, at the suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, appointed his successor; and he arrived in India in the month of July.

In Scinde nothing of importance occurred this year. The worst foe which the British had to encounter there was the climate, owing to which a distressing sickness prevailed among the troops. In consequence of this several Bengal native regiments were ordered to march on Scinde; and, although they at first refused to march, from an impression that they were destined for foreign service, they finally marched thither, with the exception of the thirty-fourth native infantry; and that regiment was ignominiously broken at Meerut, in presence of all the troops at the station.

During this year a governor-general was appointed over our recent acquisitions in China, in the person of Mr. Davies, well-known for his admirable work on China, and who had resided many years at Macao, as chief superintendent under the East India Company. Mr. Davies arrived on the 7th of May at Hong Kong, the seat of the new government; and, at the end of July, Sir Henry Pottinger, whose mission to that empire had been attended with such complete success, sailed for England.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. O’CONNELL.

It has been seen in the last chapter that the trial of Mr. O’Connell and his associates for a seditious conspiracy was postponed till the commencement of the present year. It was intended that the trial should commence on the 15th of January; and, although the defendant sought to obtain a postponement of it till the 1st of February, this intention was carried out. On that day the Court of Queen’s Bench was crowded with barristers and spectators, in the expectation that the trial would commence. Before the jury were sworn, however, Sir Coleman O’Loghlen, on the part of Mr. O’Connell, challenged the array, on the ground of the irregularities in the preparation of the jury lists, stating at the same time that the challenges of the other counsellors, or traversers, as they were called, because they had traversed the indictment, were identically the same, and would be handed in very shortly. The attorney-general demurred to the challenge; on which the question previously debated was re-argued. The judges, however allowed the demurrer; and then the court adjourned without swearing the jury. On the 16th, after some delay, twelve jurymen were sworn, when Mr. Napier opened the pleadings; after which Mr. Smith, the attorney-general, opened the case. The court adjourned at five o’clock; and next day the hearing of evidence commenced, which continued up to the 11th day of the trial, January 26th, on which day the case for the prosecution closed. On the next day Mr. Shiel opened the case for the defence, as counsel for himself and Mr. John O’Connell. In his speech he contended that Mr. O’Connell shrank with abhorrence from the sanguinary aims imputed to him; and bitterly complained that poems and articles in newspapers should be brought as evidence against him, as if he were the editor of the several journals from which that evidence had been collected. It was like making, he said, Mr. Cobden answerable for all that appeared in the _Chronicle_, or the _Globe_, or the _Sun_: he was accused, in fact, of conspiracy with men who, so far from conspiring together, were rivals. “They pay their addresses to the same mistress; but they cordially detest each other.” How formidable, then, was this doctrine of legal conspiracy! In 1819, when England was in a perilous condition, it was proved that men were drilled by night near Manchester; yet an English jury would not find Henry Hunt guilty of conspiracy. Mr. Shiel next undertook to show that his clients’ objects were legal, and sought by legal means; and concluded with an impassioned address to the jury on behalf of Mr. O’Connell and all the traversers. He asked:—“Shall I, who stretch out to you in behalf of the son the hand whose fetters the father had struck off, live to cast my eyes upon that domicile of sorrow in the vicinity of this great metropolis, and say, ’Tis there they have immured the liberator of Ireland with his fondest and best beloved child. No; it shall never be! You will not consign him to the spot to which the attorney-general invites you to surrender him. No! When the spring shall have come again, and the winter shall have passed—when the spring shall have come again, it is not through the windows of this mansion that the father of such a son, and the son of such a father, shall look upon those green hills on which the eyes of so many a captive have gazed so wistfully in vain; but in their own mountain home again they shall listen to the murmurs of the great Atlantic; they shall go forth, and inhale the freshness of the morning air together; ‘they shall be free of mountain solitude;’ they will be encompassed with the loftiest images of liberty upon every side; and if time shall have stolen its suppleness from the father’s knee, or impaired the firmness of his tread, he shall lean on the child of her that watches over him from heaven, and shall look out from some high place, far and wide, into the island whose greatness and whose glory shall be ever associated with his name. In your love of justice; in your love of Ireland; in your love of honesty and fair play, I place my confidence. I ask you for an acquittal, not only for the sake of your country, but for your own. Upon the day when this trial shall have been brought to a termination; when, amidst the burst of public expectancy, in answer to the solemn interrogatory which shall be put to you by the officer of the court, you shall answer, ‘Not guilty,’ with what a transport shall that glorious negative be welcomed! How will you be blessed, adored, worshipped! And when retiring from the scene of excitement and of passion, you shall return to your own tranquil homes, how pleasurably will you look upon your children, in the consciousness that you will have left them a patrimony of peace, by impressing upon the British cabinet that some other measure beside a state prosecution is necessary for the pacification of your country.” On the thirteenth day Mr. Moore addressed the jury on behalf of the Reverend Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Hatchell for Mr. Ray. On the fourteenth day Mr. Fitzgibbon spoke on behalf of Dr. Gray, his address occupying two days. In the course of his address an extraordinary scene took place, in consequence of a challenge which the attorney-general had sent to Mr. Fitzgibbon to fight a duel. Of this circumstance Mr. Fitzgibbon took every advantage. After handing the note to the judges which contained the challenge, he said that he left him to their lordships to answer for his conduct. Mutual recriminations and explanations followed; but the matter resulted in Mr. Smith’s withdrawing the note, which was allowed by the consent of all parties. On the four following days, Messrs. Fitzgibbon, Whiteside, M’Donnah, and Henn, successively addressed the court for different clients. On the nineteenth day, Mr. O’Connell commenced his defence. He began by showing that he had a right to demand from the jury a favourable verdict; after which he came to the consideration of the case itself; in doing which he retraced, with more or less of variety, arguments already employed. In referring to the indictment, he said that it was the history of the last nine months; and that he defied the most brilliant imagination to grasp the monstrous accumulation of matter. Its entire strength rested on the meaning of that cabalistic word, “conspiracy.” He continued:—“If, my lords, I look into the dictionary for the meaning of that word, I find that it is ‘a secret agreement between several to commit a crime;’ and that is the rational, common-sense definition of it. This word, however, in recent times, has been taken under special protection by the government; and the definition of it now is, not only a secret agreement between several to commit crime, but they have taken two loops to their bow, and the further depiction given of it is, to effect, or attempt to effect, a legal object by means that are considered illegal; and thus a conspiracy is spelt out by the construction put upon the means that are used to attain the object sought, however legitimate that object may be. It has been admitted even by the crown, that in this case there is no privacy, no secresy, no definite agreement to do anything whatsoever; but, above all, no secret agreement, no secret society, no private information. It has been admitted by the crown that there has not been even one act of private communication; that everything was openly avowed, published to the world; that this ‘secret conspiracy’ had no secrecy at all. What a monstrous thing it would be to hold that that was a conspiracy which everybody knew of, everybody heard of, and three-fifths of the people of this country were engaged in. And what was the evidence of those conspirators assembling together? That Mr. Such-a-one attended at such a meeting; that Mr. Barret attended at a certain meeting; and that Mr. Duffy attended once or twice; that I. myself attended; and this is the way the charge of conspiracy is to be spelt out. Is it common sense that that should be denominated a conspiracy? Conspiracy! where was it made? when was it made? how was it made? Was it made in winter, or in summer? in spring or in autumn? Was it made on a holiday, or on a Sunday, or on a week day? Tell me the hour, the week, the month, the year it was made? In which of the three quarters of the twelve months did the gestation of this conspiracy commence? Who proposed it? Who seconded it? Who was present at it? I don’t know whether it was said that I was present at the concoction of this conspiracy, or this agreement, private or public, or who else was there. When and where did it take place? Ought I not, at all events, to have the advantage of being-able to prove an alibi? No; but you must go over nine months, and toss up which time or place you may select. Do you not believe that if there was a conspiracy it would be proved, and that the only reason it was not proved, is, because it did not exist? The attorney-general told you it did exist; that it must have existed: but that is all imaginary; and you are called upon to find me ‘guilty’ if you imagine that this agreement was entered into. I don’t want to speak of the talents of the attorney-general. I admit the ingenuity, the talent, and the industry with which he conducted this case. He was eleven hours, eleven mortal hours detailing the facts to you. What did he tell you the conspiracy consisted of? He made a long statement, and when he came to the end, he told you to go back to the beginning, find out the conspiracy, and what it consisted of. I say, gentlemen of the jury, without tire least affectation, if any gentleman could have found out evidence of a conspiracy, it would have been found by the attorney-general.” Mr. O’Connell proceeded at great length to defend the means of his agitation, and then proceeded to vindicate its object—the repeal of the union. On the latter subject he remarked:—“I mean first to demonstrate that the English Parliament has, from the remotest period at which she possessed the power, governed Ireland with a narrow, jealous, restrictive, and oppressive policy. By way of parenthesis, I would first beg of you to recollect the history of the woollen manufactures of Ireland, in the reign of a monarch whom you are not disposed to condemn. I shall next demonstrate in succession, that the transactions of 1782 were intended to be a final adjustment, and that it was then intended and agreed that the Irish parliament, after having achieved its independence, should maintain it, and that the union was forced upon the Irish people against their consent, by the most criminal means. I shall next show you in detail the many evils that resulted from the union, and the gross injustice of the enactment of that statute. I shall show you the increasing distress and destitution which have arisen from that statute; and that there is no probability of restoring prosperity to this country, or of avoiding ultimate separation from England, save by the restoration of her parliament.” In support of these propositions, Mr. O’Connell read extracts from the writings and speeches of various statesmen, both native and foreign. In conclusion he said to the jury:—“I leave the case in your hands. I deny I have done anything to stain me. I reject with contempt the appellation of conspirator. I have acted boldly, in the open day, in the presence of the magistracy: there lias been nothing secret or concealed. I have struggled for the restoration of the parliament of my native country. Others have succeeded before me; but, succeed or fail, it is a struggle to make the fairest land in the world possess those benefits which nature intended she should enjoy.” On the next day some evidence was gone into on behalf of the defendants, in the course of which it was proved that on the 16th of July, when an arch was erected bearing the inscription, “Ireland, her parliament, or the world in a blaze,” Mr. O’Connell expressed disapprobation of it, and Mr. Steele stood by to see that it was taken down before the people were fully assembled. The next two days were chiefly occupied by the solicitor-general’s reply, which recapitulated the principal points of the evidence, and stated its bearings upon the different charges laid in the indictment. After he had concluded, the lord-chief-justice commenced the charge: in doing which he first explained the nature of the indictment, and of the single offence with which the traversers were charged, “conspiracy;” then explained the law of public discussion and public meeting; next proceeded to consider the evidence that had been given; then commented on the large funds collected in Ireland, England, Scotland, and America, towards the “exchequer” of the association; and finally, alluding to the scheme for bringing into disrepute the courts of justice as established by law through the arbitration courts, showed in what maimer the conspiracy was to be inferred. He asked:—“Have you or have you not Dr. Gray coming forward and telling the assembled multitude that the time was coming when they would be taken out of the hands of those petty tyrants who at present preside in their courts of justice? Have you or have you not Mr. O’Coimell himself adverting to the same system at the Clifden and other subsequent meetings; recommending the appointment of arbitration courts, and the placing thereon the magistrates who had been dismissed? And have you or have you not Mr. John O’Coimell making a speech recommending the same systems, and appearing himself to act under the appointment of the repeal association, in presiding over an arbitration court established in Blackrock?” The jury retired about half-past seven o’clock, and the judges withdrew. Later in the evening, Mr. Justice Crampton returned, and remained in court to await the return of the jury. They brought in a verdict of “guilty” against all the traversers on various counts; but stated “no finding” upon others, deeming them too comprehensive. This verdict was handed back by Mr. Justice Crampton, saying, that it was imperfect: they must find a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty” upon every part and every person. Finally, they were ordered to be locked up till Monday, on which day they were summoned, and an issue paper was given them, which set forth the five several issues in the indictment in a distinct shape, against which they were directed to write their finding. This was done, and all the prisoners were found guilty on one or other of the counts, and some of them, including Mr. O’Coimell, on them all, Sentence was pronounced on the 30th of May against the traversers, with the exception of the Reverend Mr. Tierney, against whom the attorney-general did not press judgment, by Mr. Justice Burton in these terms:—“With respect to the principal traverser, the court is of opinion that he must be sentenced to be imprisoned for the space of twelve calendar months; and that he is further to be fined in the sum of £2000, and bound in his own recognizances in the sum of £5000, and two sureties in £2500, to keep the peace for seven years. With respect to the other traversers, we have come to the conclusion that to each shall be allotted the same sentence: which is, that they be imprisoned for the space of nine calendar months, each of them to pay £50 fine, and enter into their own recognizances of £1000, and two sureties of £500, to keep the peace for seven years.” In accordance with this sentence the traversers were imprisoned: but in consequence of the sympathy, real or supposed, which they met with in the English parliament, their full sentence was not carried into execution. On the 9th of August, Messrs. Shiel, Wyse, Lord John Russell, and others, called upon government to release them from imprisonment; and the result of this appeal was, that on the 4th of September, the judgment of the house of lords was pronounced, reversing the judgment of Mr. O’Connell and his co-defendants. The prisoners were freed from confinement; but the result of the trial was, that the virulence of the agitation for repeal abated.

CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS.

France this year was engaged in a war with the Emperor of Morocco, over whose forces the French troops triumphed on the banks of the river Isly on the 14th of August. The result of this battle was a treaty between the two countries, in which the Emperor of Morocco engaged to prevent troops from assembling on his frontiers for the invasion of Algeria. During the autumn, Louis Philippe and the Emperor of Russia paid a visit to Queen Victoria, and stayed a few days in England, where they were treated with all due honours. In Spain the civil war which had so long convulsed the nation was ended; but it was succeeded by a state of doubtful tranquillity, and isolated insurrections broke out in various parts of the country, which were only put down by force of arms. The same fate awaited Portugal: there was a revolt of troops at Torres Novas, headed by Count Bomfin; but the rebels having shut themselves up in Almeida, that place was invested with government troops, and finally surrendered, the leader of the insurrection taking refuge in flight. In Greece the most important event was the framing of a constitutional charter by the National Assembly, consisting of one hundred and seven articles, which was signed and ratified, after some hesitation, by King Otho. During this year the King of Prussia narrowly escaped assassination at Ischl by the Burgomaster Tschech, who fired two shots from a double-barrelled pistol in quick succession against the carriage. In the early part of the year a conference took place at Vienna of plenipotentiaries from the different German states to frame measures to secure themselves by all the means in their power against the slightest change in the existing order of things, which at this time were threatened by a formidable parly, in the different states hostile to all authority. In Sweden this j’ear witnessed the death of Bernadotte, the king of that country, the most permanently successful of all the generals who took part in the French revolution. Although of obscure birth and a foreigner, he was called upon to wear the crown of Sweden by the unanimous voice of the nation; and he so identified himself with their interests, that he reigned in peace and died universally beloved by his subjects. In Switzerland disturbances took place this year in the Valais and at Lucerne: but order and tranquillity were quickly restored by the federal troops of that country.