Chapter LVI: {victoria. 1845–1846} (1)

Meeting of Parliament..... Finance and Commercial
Policy..... Retention of the Income Tax, &c. The Sugar
Duties Question..... Corn Laws and Free Trade..... The
Affairs of Ireland..... Maynooth Improvement Bill, &c.
Academical Education in Ireland..... Colonial Policy.....
Question of the Oregon Territory..... Miscellaneous
Measures of the Session..... Prorogation of
Parliament..... The Affairs of India..... The State of the
Continent.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1845}

Parliament was opened by the queen in person on the 4th of February. The speech first referred to the prosperous state of trade and commerce; to the royal visits made to her majesty by the Emperor of Russia and the King of France; to the estimates for the ensuing year; and to the peace which at this time prevailed in Ireland. Her majesty continued:—“I recommend to your favourable consideration the policy of improving and extending the opportunities of academical education in Ireland. The report of the commission appointed to inquire into the law and practice in respect to the occupation of land is nearly prepared, and shall be communicated to you immediately after its presentation. The state of the law in regard to the privileges of the Bank of Ireland, and to other banking establishments in that country, and in Scotland, will no doubt occupy your attention. The health of the inhabitants of large towns and populous districts in this part of the United Kingdom has been the subject of recent inquiry before a commission, the report of which shall be immediately kid before you. It will be highly gratifying to me if the information and suggestions contained in that report shall enable you to devise the means of promoting the health and comfort of the poorer classes of my subjects. I congratulate you on the success of the measures which three years since were adopted by parliament for the purpose of supplying the deficiency in the public revenue, and arresting the accumulation of debt in the time of peace. The act which was passed at that time for imposing a tax upon income will shortly expire. It will be for you to determine whether it may not be expedient to continue its operation for a further period, and thus to obtain the means of adequately providing for the public service, and at the same time of making a reduction in other taxations. Whatever may be the result of your deliberations in this respect, I feel assured that it will be your determination to maintain an amount of revenue amply sufficient to meet the necessary expenditure of the country, and firmly to uphold that public credit which is indispensable to the national welfare. The prospect of continued peace, and the general state of domestic prosperity and tranquillity, afford a favourable opportunity for the consideration of the matters to which I have directed your attention; and I commit them to your deliberation, with the earnest prayer that you may be enabled, under the superintending care and protection of Divine Providence, to strengthen the feelings of mutual confidence and goodwill between different classes of my subjects, and to improve the condition of my people.”

FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL POLICY—RETENTION OF THE INCOME-TAX, ETC.

The great scheme of commercial reform alluded to in her majesty’s speech at the opening of the session was brought forward by Sir Robert Peel, in a committee of ways and means, on the 14th of February. The right honourable baronet commenced by saying that though he had considerable experience in the discharge of official duties, and though he had often addressed the house on matters of great public concern, he could not approach the subject on which he had then to address the committee without great anxiety, and a deep consciousness how inadequate and imperfect the explanation would be which he should endeavour to place before it. After the declaration made in her majesty’s speech, that it was the intention of ministers to propose the continuance of the income-tax for a certain number of years; he had no other alternative than to submit to the house the general views which the government took of the financial condition and the commercial policy of the country. In explaining their views, after referring to the estimate of the probable revenue and expenditure made by the chancellor of the exchequer in April, 1844, and, after showing that the surplus revenue, on which he had calculated for the whole year had been greatly exceeded by the actual amount of revenue received on the 5th of January, 1845, he proceeded to estimate the surplus revenue which would be in the exchequer on the 5th of April in the present year, at a sum not less than £5,000,000. He next submitted to the house an estimate of the probable receipt of the revenue for the year ending the 5th of April, 1846, on the assumption that the house would not sanction the income-tax. He calculated that the receipts up to that period would be £51,000,000, and the expenditure £48,557,000; but if they deducted from this surplus the revenue derived from half a year’s income-tax, which would become due in the interim, and from the payment of the instalment from China, there would then be a small deficiency in the revenue as compared with the expenditure of the year. The question then arose, whether ministers were justified in demanding, under such circumstances, an increased expenditure on account of the public service. He was satisfied that they were justified. He did not propose an increase in the army, but he could not consent to its diminution. The military estimate for the present year would be £6,600,000; and there were reasons which induced him to propose an increased estimate for the navy; namely, the growing necessity for a further protection to our commerce in every part of the globe, and in the establishment of three new naval stations—one on the coast of Africa, another in the Pacific, and a third in the Chinese seas. He should propose an increase of four thousand men, which would cost £184,000; and in respect of the vote for the navy, and tire ordnance connected with the navy, there would be in the votes of this year an increase of nearly one million. He thought the revenues of the next year would meet this increased expenditure, even if the house would not consent to continue the income-tax. It was quite clear, however, that if it did not continue the income tax, there would be a decrease of revenue in the following year. The question, therefore, which he must put to the committee was, whether they would run the risk of deficiency by making no provision to meet it, or whether they would postpone the consideration of the deficiency till the year 1846. But ministers were induced to propose the continuance of the property-tax for a further period. If the committee sanctioned it, the revenue on the 5th of April, 1846, would amount to £53,700,000; and so long as the other sources of revenue were productive, might be calculated at that sum, deducting only a sum of £600,000 from China, which would only be receivable for one year more. He would take the amount then at £53,100,000, and deducting £49,000,000, the estimated expenditure, from that sum there would be a net surplus of £4,100,000, or if the committee acquiesced in the increased naval estimates, £3,409,000. Sir Robert Peel next approached the most important question of all; namely, the mode in which this surplus was to be applied to the relief of taxation. If the property-tax were continued, ministers intended to make a great experiment with respect to taxation; and in explaining their views Sir Robert Peel said that he would first take the customs, and submit to the house a proposition with respect to the duty on sugar. On brown Muscovado sugar, which now paid a duty of 25s. 3d., he proposed to reduce the duty to 14s.; on free-labour sugar he proposed that the protecting duty should not exceed 9s. 4d., and therefore the duty would be 23s. 2d.; on British plantation sugars he proposed that the duty should be 16s. 4d., instead of 25s. 3d.; that the duty on sugar imported from India should be 21s. 9d.; and that the duty on free-labour foreign sugar should be 21s. 9d.—thus retaining the whole amount of discriminating duty which was imposed last year, but applying that discriminating duty in a different manner; giving 9s. 4d. as a protection on Muscovado sugar, and an increased protection of lis. 4d. on the more valuable and costly article. Sir Robert Peel said that he proposed to reduce the duty on molasses; and after giving an estimate of the supply of sugar which he considered likely to come from our possessions this year, stated that the effect which would be produced on the price of sugar by this reduction in the duty would be a reduction of three halfpence per pound. The estimated loss to the revenue from this source would be £1,300,000. Sir Robert Peel next proceeded to state that in the tariff of 1842 he had abolished generally the duty on all exports, with the exception of some few articles: he now proposed to abolish the duty on all articles. By this plan the export duty on coal would cease to exist, which would be a loss to the revenue of £120,000. He next proceeded to a consideration of the duties on raw materials used in manufactures: the tariff included eight hundred and thirteen such articles, and he proposed to remove the duties applicable to four hundred and thirty of them; which would occasion a loss to the revenue of about £320,000. He next stated that he was prepared to abolish the duty on cotton-wool, which would cause a loss to the revenue of not less than £680,000. These were all the alterations he proposed in the customs; and the right honourable baronet next proceeded to the excise-duties. Among the duties which he proposed to to repeal was the auction-duty on the transfer of property. He likewise proposed that auctioneers, instead of taking out several licences, at an expense of five pounds each, for selling different articles, should take out one general licence only, at fifteen pounds each; and as the number of auctioneers was 4000, this would produce a revenue of £60,000. Sir Robert Peel next stated that he proposed to relieve the article of glass from all duty, the loss of revenue arising from which would be £642,000. This was the whole of the articles, he said, on which he proposed a remission of taxation; and the total immediate loss which the revenue would sustain by their repeal or abolition, would amount to £3,338,000, which would nearly absorb the surplus of £3,409,000. He confessed that this was a bold experiment; but, responsible as he was to parliament for its success, he was not afraid to ran the risk of making it. He then proposed to the committee to continue the income-tax for a further limited period of three years; because he had a confident persuasion that the reduction in the price of articles of great importance would be, if not a complete, yet a great compensation for its burden. He would not say that it might not be wiser to give a longer time than three years for testing this experiment; but he thought that parliament ought to have a control over the duration of such a tax. Sir Robert Peel concluded by expressing a hope that the house would be prepared to decide on the principle of his resolutions on the following Monday, the 17th, and after several members had made some brief remarks on isolated parts of the plan, most of them expressive of satisfaction with it, he moved that the chairman report progress; and gave notice that on the following Monday he would move—“That it is the opinion of the committee, that, towards raising the supply to her majesty, the respective duties on property, professions, trades, and offices, and the stamp duties in Ireland, granted by two several acts passed in the fifth year of her present majesty, be continued and further granted to her majesty for a time to be limited.” This resolution was read in a committee of ways and means on Monday, the 17th of February, after which Lord John Russel addressed the committee, factiously opposing the scheme of the premier, without offering any sound practical suggestion, or propounding any principle. Several amendments were moved by various members; but they were all negatived, and the bill passed through committee. A discussion of considerable length was renewed on the 10th of March, by Mr. Charles Duller, but the bill was read a third time and passed.

In the house of lords the principal discussion on the income-tax took place on the 4th of April, when the third reading of the bill was moved by the Earl of Ripon. The bill was read a third time and passed.

THE SUGAR-DUTIES QUESTION.

On the 24th of February, the house of commons having resolved itself into a committee of ways and means, Mr. Gibson, with a view of obtaining a permanent arrangement of the sugar-duties, moved, as an amendment upon the resolution of Sir Robert Peel, a resolution stating that no arrangement of these duties would be satisfactory and permanent, which did not involve an equalization of duty on foreign and colonial sugar. In support of this resolution Mr. Gibson called the attention of the house to a plain matter of justice in taxation, and asserted that it was not consistent with the fair performance of their functions, when they were resolving themselves into a committee of ways and means to consider of a supply to her majesty, in order to enable her to meet the expenditure of the country, to levy another tax, which was not paid either to the crown or to the exchequer, but to a class of men who had not made good their claim to any compensation fora grievance inflicted on them. The protection afforded to the West India proprietors, he said, was not for revenue, for it defrauded revenue; not for the protection of the producer, for his produce had not been increased; not for the benefit of the exporter at home, for the export to those colonies were stationary; and not to be defended on the score of consistency, since Sir Robert Peel was going to admit cotton, the produce of the East Indies and the United States of America, on the same terms. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ewart, and supported by Lord Howick, and Messrs. Ricardo, Cobden, Villiers, Miles, and Bright. On the other hand, it was opposed by Sir George Clerk, and Messrs. James, Gladstone, Labouchere, and Goulburn. On a division it was rejected by a majority of two hundred and seventeen against eighty-four. Subsequently several amendments were moved, but without success, with the exception of one proposed by Mr. Hawes; namely, to the effect—“that provision be made in the bill for the drawback of the amount of the duty reduced on such duty-paid sugar as now remains in the queen’s warehouses.” This amendment was at first resisted by Mr. Goulburn; but finding that the house was in favour of it, Sir Robert Peel consented to make arrangements, not to return the whole duty, but to make compensation for the loss. On this understanding Mr. Hawes withdrew his amendment, and the bill passed through committee. Various discussions took place, during the progress of the hill, upon the other parts of the ministerial tariff, but they were all affirmed, and the bill then passed. Its progress through the upper house was speedily effected.

CORN-LAWS AND FREE TRADE.

This long-agitated and great question formed a prominent subject of debate during this session. The first occasion which led to a general discussion of the policy of the protective laws as regards agriculture, was furnished by a motion made by Mr. Cobden, on the 13th March, “for a select committee to inquire into the causes and extent of the alleged existing agricultural distress, and into the effects of legislative protection upon the interests of landowners, tenant-farmers, and farm-labourers.” In support of this motion Mr. Cobden endeavoured to prove the existence of distress among the farmers; asserting that half of them were in a state of insolvency, and that the other half were paying rents out of their capital, and were fast hastening to the same melancholy condition. Mr. Cobden next contended that there was a want of security in tenure, and that this fact not only prevented the application of capital, but that it also kept the land in a bad state of cultivation. The farmer without a lease was afraid that if he made any improvement in his farm, he should be called upon to pay a higher rent; and he proved this fact by reference to the language used by many distinguished members of agricultural associations. He asked why land should not be let on the same condition as manufactories, which were let with a schedule of the state of the manufactory; and when the tenant left them he was bound to make compensation for any damage which it might have suffered. Having advocated the plan of leasing farms at great length, Mr. Cobden proceeded to contend that a free trade in corn would be more beneficial to the farmers and to the labourers than to any other class of the community. He had thought so before the new tariff; and he contended so now with tenfold confidence. He then described the lamentable condition of the agricultural peasantry; and asked the landlords, after they had brought their labourers to such a melancholy state, whether they could have anything to fear from risking this inquiry? What had government done for them in their financial scheme? Nothing that was calculated, if he had heard aright, to benefit the agricultural population. Well, then, what would they do? Protection had been a failure when it reached a prohibitory duty of 80s. a quarter; it had been a failure when it reached the pivot price of 60s.; and it was a failure now when they had got a sliding-scale; for they had admitted the lamentable condition of their tenantry and peasantry. Let them accede, then, to his proposition for a committee, and he would pledge himself to explode the fallacy of agricultural protection, and to put an end to the present system within two years from the publication of its report. Mr. S. Herbert, secretary at war, announced that government would meet Mr. Cobden’s motion with a direct negative. On a division the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and thirteen against one hundred and twenty-one.

On the 3rd of June Mr. Ward resumed his exertions to obtain a select committee to inquire into the existence of the peculiar burdens and exemptions of the landed interests. Taking advantage of an admission contained in a speech of Sir James Graham, that during the last twelve months pauperism had diminished, and trade and commerce had improved in the country because the price of wheat was low, Mr. Ward said that he was not going to underrate the benefit produced by an abundant harvest, but he believed that still greater benefit had been effected by the liberal policy of government. The idea that there were any peculiar burdens on the land, was a fallacy peculiar to English gentlemen brought up in the school of the corn-laws. He denied that the land-tax, poor-rates, tithes, county-rates, highway-rates, the malt-tax, and similar impositions, were peculiar burdens on land; but if they were, he contended that there were to be set against them the exemptions enjoyed by the land in not being liable to the legacy and probate duty, and in the cultivation of it being relieved from the horse-tax, from the tax on husbandry servants if employed for domestic services, and various other taxes. Mr. Ward moved for a select committee of inquiry into this subject; and his motion was supported by Dr. Bowring, and Messrs. Cobden and Vernon Smith. Sir John Tyrell opposed it, as did also Messrs. Sidney Herbert and Newdegate. On a division it was rejected by a majority of one hundred and eighty-two against one hundred and nine.

The subject of the corn-laws was taken into more complete consideration on the 26th of May, when, pursuant to notice, Lord John Russell moved the following resolutions:—“That the present state of political tranquillity, and the recent revival of trade, afford to this house a favourable opportunity to consider of such measures as may tend permanently to improve the condition of the labouring classes. That those laws which impose duties, usually called protective, tend to impair the efficiency of labour, to restrict the free interchange of commodities, and to impose on the people unnecessary taxation. That the present corn-law tends to check improvements in agriculture, produces uncertainty in all farming speculations, and holds out to the owners and occupiers of land prospects of special advantage which it fails to secure. That this house will take the said laws into consideration, with a view to such cautious and deliberate arrangements as may be most beneficial to all classes of her majesty’s subjects. That the freedom of industry would be promoted by a careful revision of the law of parochial settlement which now prevails in England and Wales. That a systematic plan of colonization would partially relieve those districts of the country where the deficiency of employment Iras been most injurious to the labourers in husbandry. That the improvements made of late years in the education of the people, as well as its more general diffusion, have been seen with satisfaction by this house. That this house will be ready to give its support to measures founded on liberal and comprehensive principles, which may be conducive to the further extension of religious and moral instruction. That a humble address be presented to her majesty to lay the foregoing resolutions before her majesty.” In support of these resolutions, Lord John Russell made a long and comprehensive speech, embracing the several topics to which they had reference. Adverting to the corn-laws, he said, that experience had shown that the present system was founded in error, and produced the very evil against which it was intended to guard. The graduated scale was a complete failure, and equally injurious to the purchaser and consumer. It was contrary to all true commercial principles, and was perfectly ruinous to the farmer. It also tended to check all improvements in agriculture, and to render the cultivator of the soil careless as to the system of cultivation which he pursued. Mr. Sharman Crawford moved as an amendment that the following words be inserted after the word “opportunity,” in the first clause:—“To give immediate attention to the claims, so repeatedly urged in the petitions of the people, for the extension of the parliamentary suffrage, as well as—.” Sir James Graham, in reply, said that he agreed to the first resolution moved by Lord John Russell, but not to the rest; and, therefore, he moved the previous question. The house divided on Mr. Crawford’s amendment, which was negatived by a majority of two hundred and fifty-three against thirty-three. Sir James Graham then moved the previous question, which was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-two against one hundred and four.

Mr. C. Villiers, according to his annual custom, on the 10th of June submitted to the house of commons a motion for the appointment of a committee of the whole house for the purpose of considering his resolutions for the abolition of all restrictions on the importation of foreign corn. On a division, the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and fifty-four against one hundred and thirty-two.

AFFAIRS OF IRELAND—MAYNOOTH IMPROVEMENT BILL.

On the 3rd of April, Sir Robert Peel brought in a measure for improving and increasing the grant to the college of Maynooth. The intention of the premier had been made known before, and a large number of petitions were on that evening presented against any such grant; in reference to which Sir Robert Peel said that he had given timely notice of his intention to consider the case of Maynooth in a friendly spirit; and therefore he was not unprepared for the demonstration which had been made, and which no doubt proceeded from persons actuated by conscientious scruples. In continuation, he observed, that it appeared to the ministers there were three courses which they might pursue:—to continue the present system, and grant without alteration; to discontinue the vote altogether, and to repudiate all connexion with Maynooth; or liberally to adopt, improve, and extend the institution provided for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood. He proceeded to discuss these three courses in succession; and after showing that they could not conscientiously adopt the two first, he said:—“There remains, therefore, but one other course, and that is the course we are prepared to take. We are prepared, in a liberal sense and confiding spirit, to improve that institution, and to elevate the tone of education there. Will you not take that course?” Sir Robert Peel then stated the proposals of government to the house. The trustees of Maynooth college, he said, could purchase land to the extent of £1,000 per annum; but they could not receive it on any other terms than for the lives of the trustees; he proposed to incorporate the trustees by the title of “the trustees of Maynooth college;” and to enable them to hold real property to the amount of £3,000 per annum, should members of the Roman Catholic faith be desirous to contribute to the college so incorporated. The stipend of each professor did not now exceed £120 per annum; instead of defining what should be the amount paid to each professor, he proposed to allot to the trustees a certain sum, which should be placed at their discretion for the payment of salaries. The sum would admit of a payment of £600 or £700 per annum to the president of the college; of £260 or £270 to the professors of theology; and of £220 or £230 to the other professors. A sum not exceeding £6,000 would be allotted to the trustees for making provision for the officers of that institution. At present there were about four hundred and thirty students in the college, divided into three classes: the twenty Dumboyne students, the three senior classes, and the four junior classes. It was proposed to allot £40 per annum to each of the Dumboyne students: and to make provision on the whole for five hundred free students; that there should be two hundred and fifty students in the four junior classes, and two hundred and fifty in the three senior classes, these being divinity students. For the maintenance of each of these students, it was proposed that a sum should be placed at the disposal of the trustees of £28 on the average. It was further proposed that to each of the students in the three senior classes, £20 per annum should be allowed for their own personal expenses. The sum required for the students would be £14,560; the total sum for the establishment, £26,360. It was further proposed that the college should be made, in appearance and in fact, worthy of an institution of the kind; and that proper provision should be made for the accommodation of the presidents and professors; and for every purpose ministers asked for a vote, not annual, of £30,000. Sir Robert Peel further stated, that it was proposed the board of works should undertake the repairs of the college, as they did of the other public buildings, in order that they might be conducted with the greatest economy; and that the expenses of the repairs should be an annual vote, included in the annual estimates for the board of works, as in other cases. Instead of the present _ex-officio_ ministers—the lord-chancellor and the judges—it was further proposed that the crown should appoint five visitors, who were to visit the college once a year, and as often as the lord-lieutenant might direct. These visitors were not to interfere with any matters relating to the doctrine and discipline of the church of Rome; but for those objects three more visitors would be elected by the other five, as at present to be members of the Roman Catholic church. Such, Sir Robert Peel continued, was an outline of the measure. It had not been the subject of any stipulation with the authorities of the Roman Catholic church: but the ministers had intimated their intentions to these dignitaries; and they had every reason to believe they were satisfied with, and grateful for, the measure. He added, in conclusion:—“We do not think that there is any violation of conscientious scruples involved in our proposition. We believe that it is perfectly compatible to hold steadfast the profession of our faith without wavering, and at the same time to improve the education, and to elevate the character of those who, do what you will—pass this measure or refuse it—must be the spiritual guides and religious instructors of millions of your fellow-countrymen.” Sir Robert Inglis met the motion for leave to bring in this bill by a direct negative. Messrs. Law, Bruce, Grogan, and others, followed with similar expressions of sentiment. Mr. Plumptre especially expressed in strong terms his repugnance to the proposal on religious grounds; avowing, as the basis of his objections, the belief that the Roman Catholic religion was idolatrous. On the side of the liberal, all were in favour of the motion, except Mr. T. Duncombe, who expressed himself averse to all religious establishments supported out of the public revenue. Some on the conservative side, as Lords Francis Egerton and Sandon, and Mr. J. S. Wortley, spoke in favour of the measure. Several of the Irish members anticipated a great improvement in the Roman Catholic priesthood, and Lord John Russell, while he supported the motion, expressed a hope that it was the commencement of a series of measures which would unite the two countries in an enduring bond. On a division, the motion for leave to bring in the bill was carried by a large majority; but the measure, though destined to become law, was subsequently most strenuously opposed, both in and out of parliament. Those who were ardently attached to the vital principles of Protestantism felt an apprehension that the endowment of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, and the rapid downfall of the established church in that country, if not in England also, was involved in such a measure; and their zeal being thus awakened, no exertions were spared to frustrate the plans of government. On the second reading of the bill being moved on the 11th of April, the measure was opposed by Mr. Colquhoun. Mr. Colquhoun concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. Grogan followed on the same side; and the Earl of Arundel and Mr. Gladstone supported the measure: the latter stating that he did so in opposition to the prevailing opinion, and to his own deeply cherished prepossessions. Mr. D’Israeli said that Sir Robert Peel had declared there were three courses open to him. “In a certain sense, and looking to his own position, he is right: there is the course the right honourable gentleman has left; there is the course that the right honourable gentleman is following; and there is usually the course which the right honourable gentleman ought to pursue. Perhaps, sir, I ought to say that there is a fourth course; because it is possible for the house of commons to adopt one of those courses indicated by the right honourable gentleman, and then having voted for it, to rescind it.” Mr. D’Israeli proceeded to complain of the course pursued by Sir R. Peel towards his supporters, in which he indulged in private personalities, which was strongly condemned by Mr. Roebuck, who described his speech as being poor in execution as it was malicious in motive. Mr. Roebuck proceeded to defend the measure; and he was followed by Messrs. Fox Maule and Stafford O’Brien, both of whom opposed it. Mr. Macauley considered it merely a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence: it was not a question of principle, but purely a question between £9000 and £26,000. Mr. Shaw energetically opposed the endowment; and Lord Lincoln and Mr. Sidney Herbert supported it. Mr. Byng, the venerable member for Middlesex, also declared himself in favour of the measure; and Lord Ashley and G. A. Hamilton opposed it; Lord Ashley had never known a measure more important for good or evil, not even excepting the Roman Catholic relief bill. His lordship contended that the proposal of government amounted to almost a declaration, that, as far as the power of enactments and statutes extended, the Roman Catholic religion should never cease to be the religion of Ireland. But while Lord Ashley opposed the measure, he disclaimed being actuated by any feeling of hostility towards the people of Ireland. If he thought, indeed, that this concession would really content the people of Ireland, he would pause before he came to a decision in the matter. The bill was further supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lords John Manners and Russell, Sirs George Grey and James Graham, and Messrs. Cobden, Smyth, and Shiel. On the other hand it was opposed by Messrs. Bright, dimming, Bruce, Blackstone, Ferrand, Sharman Crawford, T. Duncombe, Muntz, and Law. The debate was closed by Sirs Robert Inglis and Robert Peel; the former against, and the latter for the measure. On a division the second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-three against one hundred and seventy-six. The battle, however, was not yet ended. On the order of the day being read for going into committee, Mr. Ward moved the following resolution as an amendment:—“That it is the opinion of this house, that any provision to be made for the purposes of the present bill, ought to be taken from the funds already applicable to ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland.” A long debate ensued on this motion, which was continued for two nights; but on a division it was negatived by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against one hundred and forty-eight. On the 25th a resolution, authorising a grant of £30,000 for improving Maynooth college, and for the payment of the amount requisite for salaries and other expenses, out of the consolidated fund, was passed by the house; but on the motion for bringing up the report, opposition to the measure was renewed by Mr. Law, who moved as an amendment that it be brought up on that day six months. Another lengthened debate took place, but the motion was negatived by one hundred and twenty-eight against fifty-two; and several other amendments, subsequently moved by Mr. Hindley and other members, were rejected by large majorities. The whole question was reopened on the motion for the third reading, and a discussion commenced which continued for three nights; but the third reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and seventeen against one hundred and eighty-four. The last attempt to defeat the measure was a motion by Mr. T. Duncombe, on the question, “That the bill do now pass,” proposing a clause to limit its operation to three years. This was objected to by Sir Robert Peel, and the proposal was negatived by a large majority, after which the bill was passed.

The second reading was moved by the Duke of Wellington in the house of lords, on the second of June. Lord Roden had given notice of intention to move, as an amendment, for a select committee to inquire into the character of the education given at Maynooth; and he now rose for the purpose of thus endeavouring to get rid of the bill. Instead of the measure being looked upon in Ireland, he said, as a boon, it was looked upon as one extorted by fear. He quoted a letter from Dr. Higgins, one of the Roman Catholic bishops, to show that no conciliatory effects could result from the measure. Nor was it his opinion that it would improve the education given at Maynooth: rather, it would afford facilities for recruiting the priesthood from the lower classes of the people. He maintained that the system of instruction given there had anti-social and disloyal tendencies, which he illustrated by a reference to the text-books, and details in the history and conduct of the institution. The Bishop of London supported the amendment: he could not consent to any measure which would make the college of Maynooth an integral part of the constitution. The Earl of St. Germains and Lord Beaumont vindicated the measure; and the Duke of Manchester and the Bishop of Cashel opposed it. The debate having been adjourned, was resumed by the Earls of Hardwick and Carnarvon, who supported the bill. The Earl of Winchilsea followed, and condemned the bill in vehement terms; and the Marquis of Normanby defended it as a proper concession to a nation of which seven-eighths were Roman Catholics. The Archbishop of Dublin supported the measure. The Bishop of Exeter argued against the measure that the college was not originally meant to be endowed by the state; and denied that the improved visitation which the bill professed to give would be a system of education. The debate having been again adjourned, was resumed by Earl Spencer and the Bishop of Norwich. On a division, Lord Roden’s amendment was negatived by a majority of one hundred and fifty-five to fifty-nine; and the house having again divided on the original resolution, the second reading was carried by a majority of two hundred and twenty-six against sixty-nine. Subsequently, a discussion took place on the committal of the bill. On the motion for the third reading another debate took place; and the Bishop of Llandaff moved that the bill be read a third time that day six months; but on a division this amendment was negatived by a majority of one hundred and eighty-one against fifty. On the question that the bill do pass, the Earl of Winchilsea moved another amendment to the effect that the operation of the bill should be limited to a period of three years; but tins also was negatived, and the bill then passed.

ACADEMICAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

Another scheme, emanating from government, for the improvement of the Irish people, was a plan for the extension of academical education in Ireland. This measure was developed by the secretary of state for the home department. On moving for leave to bring in the bill, on the 9th of May, Sir James Graham said that the object in bringing it forward was to improve the social condition of Ireland. The difficulty of accomplishing such an object, he said, would be discerned, when he stated that the plan which he conceived to be the most essential was the diffusion of the benefits of education among the higher classes of the people. Religious differences formed the great obstacle to the adjustment of the general question of education in Ireland. For a long series of years the religion of the majority of the Irish people had been treated by the state as hostile. That notion, however, had been gradually abandoned: the penal laws had either been removed, or were in the course of removal, although traces of them were still perceptible, and operating most noxiously in their interference with the education of the people. Sir James Graham next proceeded to discuss what was the best mode of educating the people of Ireland, contending that it consisted in the absence of all religious tests. It was on this principle that the bill he proposed was founded. Government recommended to the house the establishment of three provincial institutions for education in Ireland, and founded upon the same principles as the metropolitan colleges of London and Edinburgh. Cork was proposed as the site of the college for the south; Galway, or Limerick, for the west; and Deny, or Belfast, for the north of Ireland. He could not pledge himself for the exact amount of the expense which would be necessary to carry this proposal into execution; but he conceived that £30,000 would be wanted for the erection of each college; and he would therefore mention £100,000 as a sum amply sufficient for that purpose. He further recommended the sum of £6000 for each of the colleges, to meet the annual expenses of the officers of these institutions, and of the prizes to be established for the encouragement of learning. Sir James Graham then gave a sketch of the different officers whom he would establish in these institutions. In each college there was to be a principal and ten or twelve professors; and at Belfast and Cork there would be a medical school attached to each college. The professors were to be nominated by the crown; and the crown was to possess the power of removing them for good cause. There were no professorships of divinity to be established; but religion was not to be neglected; on the contrary, every facility would be given for the voluntary endowment of theological professorships; but the attendance at these lectures would not be compulsory, for the fundamental principle of the measure would be the avoidance of all interference, positive or negative, in all matters affecting the conscience. The right honourable baronet went on to state that there was already an academical institution at Belfast for the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland, which was supported by a parliamentary grant, at the cost of £2100 per annum; and government proposed to continue this grant. There was another subject, he said, with which, although a difficult one, he was prepared to grapple. The bill only founded colleges in Ireland: the question was:—“Should these three colleges be incorporated into one great central university, or should parliament invest each of them with the power of granting degrees in the arts, sciences, and medicine?” He proposed that the bill should afford her majesty means to establish a new university in Dublin for this purpose—Trinity College being founded on Protestant principles, and therefore excluding Roman Catholics or dissenters from all privileges—or to incorporate into the existing university these colleges. Lord Palmerston promised ministers the fair and honest support of the Whigs. The measure was opposed by Sir Robert Inglis; but leave was given to bring in the bill, and it was read a first time. On the motion for the second reading, which was moved on the 2nd of June, a debate was commenced, which continued by adjournment for two nights. The debate was opened by Lord John Manners, who moved that it be read a second time that day six months: his belief was, that if it passed in its present shape it would prove a curse, and not a boon to Ireland. Sir James Graham defended it from this charge. He proceeded to state some proposed alterations in the bill. The first change proposed was with regard to the visitorial power of the crown. He proposed to give the crown the power of appointing visitors, which visitors would have authority to inquire into any abuse which might arise in these institutions, and to apply an effective remedy thereto. He also now thought that there should be attached to each of the colleges a hall or halls in which religious instructions might be given to the students by pastors of their own religion; and he was disposed to add a clause to that effect. The Roman Catholic bishops had presented a memorial praying that a fair proportion of the professors and office-bearers in the new colleges should be members of the Roman Catholic church; that Roman Catholic professors should fill the chairs of history, logic, metaphysics, moral philosophy, geology, and anatomy; that there should be a Roman Catholic chaplain in each of the colleges, to superintend the moral and religious instruction of the Roman Catholic pupils, and that each of these chaplains should be provided with a suitable salary; and that all Roman Catholic professors should be appointed to a local board of trustees. Sir James Graham could not consent to such demands: as a majority of the students would belong to the Roman Catholic church, it was probable that a majority of the professors would belong to it also; but they could not be exclusively provided by the measure. Mr. E. B. Roche, who had at first hailed the measure as a boon, now declared his intention of opposing its further progress, because the nomination of all the professorships was in the crown, and there was no “fixity of tenure” for any administration which entertained friendly sentiments toward the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. Sir Robert Inglis repeated that this bill was “a gigantic scheme of godless education;” and agreed with Mr. O’Connell in thinking that these new institutions would be deficient in that species of education which was the only legitimate one for an immortal being—education in the duties which every man had to perform, and the principles on which those duties rested. The second reading was supported by Lord John Russell, who nevertheless wished to amend it in committee, and Lord Mahon, and Messrs. Redington, Milnes, Osborne, Wyse, and R. M. O. Ferrol; and opposed by Messrs. Acland, B. Hope, and Hamilton. Mr. Acland called attention to the fact that some of the speakers in behalf of the bill gave an unqualified support to it; and contended that not one of them had proved that it would give such education as would be useful in any respect to Ireland. Sir Robert Peel spoke at great length in behalf of the measure; and announced that, if adopted, and the plan worked well, government would consider whether the three colleges should be incorporated into a university, and what power that university should have in conferring degrees. After a few words from Messrs. M. J. O’Connell and Shaw in favour of the second reading, though not of entire approval of the measure, the amendment was negatived by a majority of three hundred and eleven against forty-six, and the bill was read a second time. Upon the resolution of the committee of the whole house for the grant being reported, Mr. O’Connell took occasion to declare his protest against it; and to thank Sir Robert Inglis for calling it “a godless system of education.” Subsequently, on the committal of the bill, he again declared his objections to its principle: and Lord John Russell coincided with him in his statement, that unless the bill was made acceptable to the Roman Catholics, by providing for the religious instruction of the pupils, it would be useless. On the first clause, relating to the grant of £100,000 for building the three colleges and necessary buildings, Lord John Russell proposed, as an amendment, to include among the buildings to be thus paid for, halls for the accommodation of the students. This motion, however, was negatived; as was also another, moved by Mr. Wyse, on the clause which declared that the appointment of professors should be vested in the crown, and after a time limited should revert to parliament. Mr. Wyse desired that the professors should be chosen, after an investigation into their qualifications, by a competent board of examiners; but Sir Robert Peel opposed the amendment, as premature, and likely to operate to the discouragement of the students.. Several other amendments were proposed in committee, but they were all rejected; and on the third reading Mr. Bernai Osborne introduced a collateral discussion upon the revenues and management of Trinity College, Dublin, by proposing the following resolution:—“That an humble address be presented to her majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry to be made into the amount of the revenue of Trinity College, Dublin, from rents of college-lands, endowments, and bequests, fees on matriculation, on taking degrees, and from every other source; also into the manner in which that income is expended; the number of senior and junior fellows, of professors, scholars, and all other officers of the college, with the amount of salary and allowances to each of them, with a view to ascertain whether the income or funds at present applied solely to the benefit of Protestants in Trinity College, Dublin, might not be beneficially extended so as to make Roman Catholics and Protestant dissenters eligible if otherwise qualified, to all scholarships, and to all such fellowships, professorships, and other offices in Trinity College, Dublin, as are not intended for ecclesiastical purposes immediately connected with ecclesiastical endowment.” Mr. Osborne, in support of this resolution, contended that Trinity College was not founded with Protestant money, but with the property of the Roman Catholic Earl of Desmond, confiscated by Elizabeth in 1592; and that it was not until forty years afterwards, in the time of Strafford, that Roman Catholics were mentioned, and rendered ineligible for the professorships. The motion was opposed by Sirs Thomas Freemantle and R. Inglis, the latter of whom denied that the college was founded with Roman Catholic money. It was erected on the site of the old monastery of All-Hallows, which having become vested in the mayor and citizens of Dublin, by grant from Henry the Eighth, was by them given for the establishment of this college. The funds for its erection and endowment were raised by a contribution among the gentry of Ireland, for which purpose a circular letter was sent to them by the Lord-deputy Fitzwilliam, the archbishop, and the lords of the council in 1791: the original foundation of the college might, therefore, he said, be as purely Protestant as could be imagined. The motion was supported by Messrs. Warburton and Shiel, the latter of whom contended that Queen Elizabeth’s charter did not contemplate exclusively Protestant objects. But it was rather on the ground of justice than on such grounds, he said, that this subject ought to be discussed. He remarked:—“There are seventy scholarships; the scholars have lodging and commons for a nominal sum, with £10 a-year and £40 a-year in the last three years: the scholarships being exclusively Protestant. So long,” he continued, “as you keep up Trinity College in its supremacy you will make your measure of academical education, for all political purposes, an entire failure. Your provincial academies will be marked with all the characteristics of mediocrity, which will only render the elevation of Trinity College more conspicuous by the inferiority with which it will be surrounded. How stunted and dwarfed the groves of our new academies when compared with the rich luxuriance of the gardens of Trinity! I had a thousand times rather you had applied your £18,000 a-year to the establishment of new fellowships and new professorships in the metropolitan and national institutions; because if you had done so, Englishmen would have got a value—a value in peace, a value in contentment, a value in pacificatory results—for their money. Now your measure, for political purposes—I say, for political purposes, though I won’t deny that the advantages of education will be distributed to a certain extent—but your measure, though for political purposes it may partially succeed, yet as a message of peace it will be a failure.” Sir Robert Peel contended that he and his colleagues had exerted themselves to make equality in Ireland, at the expense of giving umbrage to the majority of the people in this country. He appealed to the enlarged grant to Maynooth, and to the way in which the charitable bequests act had been carried out, as showing the conciliatory disposition of the government. Yet, after all their exertions for peace they were doomed to be disappointed. He regretted Mr. Shiel’s speech on account of the use that would be made of it in this country. It would be said—“See how unavailing all attempts are to conciliate the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Regardless of the warnings, the feelings, and fears of their friends, they hoped by proposing certain measures, that they would make an impression on the Irish mind; but, instead of this, the leading Roman Catholic member in the house of commons gets up and tells them that, unless they went ten times as far as they had yet gone, they would have an insurrection in Ireland.” This he believed, however, was not the feeling of the Irish people; he believed that government had made an impression on the feelings of the Irish people. After a few words from Lord John Russell, the house divided on Mr. Osborne’s amendment, which was negatived by a majority of one hundred and sixty-eight against ninety-one, and the bill was then read a third time and passed.

The second reading of the Irish education bill was moved in the house of lords by Lord Stanley on the 21st of July. The Earl of Shrewsbury opposed the measure. Government he said, had been overawed by the fanatic feeling of the English people; and he urged ministers to withdraw the bill for a season, and reintroduce it in a shape better suited to the wants and wishes of Ireland. The bill was further opposed by the Earl of Carnarvon, who protested against the divorce of religion from education, and expressed his fears that such a precedent might be applied to Oxford and Cambridge. The bill was defended by the Duke of Newcastle, the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Bishop of Norwich, and Lords Brougham, Beaumont, and Clifford. The second reading was affirmed without a division; and subsequently the bill passed through committee, and was read a third time without any fixed opposition.

COLONIAL POLICY.