Chapter XXXVII: {george IV. 1827—1828} (1)

Death of the Duke of York..... Meeting of Parliament.....
Catholic Question..... The Corn-laws..... Dissolution of the
Ministry..... Re-assembling of Parliament..... Explanations
of, and Hostility to the Ministry..... Opinions of His
Majesty on the Catholic Question..... Motion on the
Chancellor’s Jurisdiction in Bankruptcy..... Motion
regarding the Stamp Duty and Cheap Publications.....
The Corn-law Question..... Financial Statements..... Corrupt
Boroughs..... The Game-laws..... The Court of Chancery.....
Prorogation of Parliament..... Death of Mr. Canning.....
Administration of Lord Goderich..... Review of Foreign
Policy.

DEATH OF THE DUKE OF YORK.

{A.D. 1827}

The earliest public event of the year was the death of the Duke of York, the heir presumptive of the crown. His royal highness had been for some time seriously ill, and as far back as the month of July his disease had assumed the character of dropsy. The progress of the complaint had rendered an operation necessary in September; but though the result of the operation, aided by the effects of medicine, removed the constitutional complaint, its partial influence on the frame was followed by a mortification in the legs, which, assuming sometimes a more favourable, and sometimes a more alarming appearance, gradually weakened the whole system. His constitution sunk beneath the power of art which was intended to revive it: nature gave up the struggle on the 5th of January, his royal highness being in the sixty-fourth year of his age. His death was accompanied by sincere and universal regret; for though he had failings, they were hidden from the public gaze by his more prominent virtues. Seldom, indeed, have the public services of one so near the throne produced to the country so much solid and lasting good, as resulted from his long administration of the British army. His private character was also formed to conciliate personal attachments: he never made a personal enemy, nor lost a friend. Everyone who had intercourse with him was impressed with the kindness of his heart, kindness which appeared in all his actions. In a word, his public and private character excited one universal sentiment of respect and esteem. The soldier mourned over him as that of a benefactor to whom he was indebted for comfort, security, and respectability; and all other ranks of society joined in their lamentations over a prince whose personal qualities had been always popular, and to whom, in his public capacity, they felt that the empire owed a heavy debt of gratitude for all that he had effected for its safety and honour. His royal highness was succeeded as commander-in-chief by the only man in whom personal merit and the fullest confidence of the country were united—the Duke of Wellington.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament resumed its sittings on the 8th of February. One of its earliest measures was to vote an address of condolence to the king on the death of his royal brother, on which occasion all political asperity was forgotten in an unanimous expression of respect for the private character and official conduct of the deceased. Men of all parties, as Mr. Peel, Sir R. Wilson, Mr. Brougham, and others, paid the tribute of high respect to his memory. Mr. Brougham considered it no small praise to the Duke of York that, in his office of commander-in-chief, he never allowed his political principles to interfere in the discharge of the duties of his office; and Sir R. Wilson remarked, that it was worthy of observation that the improvement which he had effected in the discipline of the army was maintained without undue severity. On these improvements Mr. Peel dwelt at great length, clearly showing that the high state of discipline now existing in the British army was chiefly owing to the exertions of the deceased prince.

By the death of the Duke of York his next brother, the Duke of Clarence, became heir presumptive to the crown. Ministers embraced this opportunity of proposing an increase of £6,000 per annum to his income, as well as £3,000 as a jointure to his consort. This motion was strongly opposed by Lord Althorpe, and by Messrs. Hume, Brougham, and Abercromby. Mr. Hume contended that it was ungracious and inconsistent to be proposing an additional burden of £9,000 a year, so soon after a royal letter to the bishops had exhorted them to use all their influence in promoting charitable contributions for the relief of the starving population. He had himself recently presented a petition from the weavers of Blackburn, praying that something might be done which would provide them with food; and the answer given to their prayers was a vote for adding to their burdens. Unwilling, however, to do anything which might look like a reproach to the crown, he would not oppose the motion by a direct negative; but, in order to give ministers an opportunity of withdrawing it, he would move that the chairman should report progress, and sit again for the further consideration of the proposed grant. The principal plea of the opponents of the grant was, that no additional expenses were entailed on his royal highness; but it was finally voted by a majority of ninety-nine against fifteen.

CATHOLIC QUESTION.

At this period circumstances seemed peculiarly favourable to the claims of the Roman Catholics. The Duke of York was dead, Lord Liverpool was seriously ill, and the influence of Mr. Canning was all potent in the cabinet. Public attention had been fixed on this subject, from the opening of the session, more eagerly than any other which promised to occupy the attention of parliament; and petitions against their claims nightly covered the tables of both houses from the Protestant community. On the other hand, the Catholics were equally active; and at length, on the 5th of March, after having presented their general petition, Sir Francis Burdett brought the question before the house of commons. He moved—“That this house is deeply impressed with the necessity of taking into immediate consideration the laws inflicting penalties on his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects, with the view of removing them.” The speech which Sir Francis Burdett delivered on this occasion gave rise to a debate that lasted two nights. In the course of his speech, he remarked, that the claims of the Catholics rested on more undeniable grounds than were supplied by general justice, or by historical deductions—they had been secured to them by treaty. “Every hour,” he said, “that the disqualifications were allowed to continue, was a new violation of our solemn engagements, and a breach of public faith. What, the Catholics asked, had been secured to them by the treaty of Limerick? The first article of that treaty was the following:—‘The loyal Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles II.; and their majesties, so soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion,’ Now he apprehended that Catholic peers sat in parliament in the reign of Charles II., so that here was an express stipulation for the benefit of Catholics generally. It was impossible to admit the interpretation put upon this provision by the opponents of the Catholic claims, as if its benefits had been limited to the persons besieged in Limerick; for strange, indeed, would it be, if those who held out longest in arms, and therefore did the greatest extent of mischief to the ruling powers, should yet be held to have been entitled to public favour. It was monstrous to suppose that this treaty related solely to the garrison of Limerick; for what said the 9th article?—‘The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit to their majesties’ government shall be the oath aforesaid and no other.’ The oath referred to was the ‘oath of allegiance,’ and no other; and the article comprehended all submitting Catholics generally. But how had faith been kept with them? when it was by the exaction of new oaths, and nothing else, that they had ever since been excluded from the enjoyment of their proper privileges? But even if the interpretation that the men in arms alone were included were conceded, then their descendants (and they must have some) were, though Catholics, invested with these privileges. There necessarily must be some Catholics in the kingdom who were not excluded with the rest of their brethren: and where were they? But such a construction was trifling, contrary to all rules of logic, and all fair modes of reasoning. So far as the treaty of Limerick went, the case was conclusive: faith had been pledged, and faith had been broken.” The treaty of Limerick thus brought forward by Sir Francis Burdett became the grand argument in the debate; and it was relied on both by those who favoured and those who opposed emancipation. In supporting the motion, Mr. Plunkett, the attorney-general for Ireland, said that it certainly did appear to him that at the time of signing the articles of the treaty of Limerick, the Roman Catholics of Ireland possessed certain important privileges; and amongst others the right of admission into parliament. The first article fully recognised their privileges, for it did not refer merely to the exercise of religious rights, but also to the enjoyment of such political privileges as they had exercised in the reign of Charles II., one of which was eligibility to sit in the Irish parliament. It was argued, he said, that this provision extended only to persons who were in the garrison; but the words of the article, which mentioned generally, and without reservation, “the Roman Catholics of this kingdom,” sufficiently proved that it was meant to include the whole body of Irish Roman Catholics. One of the most powerful pleaders on the other side of the question was Mr. Peel, whose speech made a deep impression on the house. “If I could be satisfied that any of the privileges withheld from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, were so withheld in violation of the treaty of Limerick, it would very materially influence my judgment in deciding on the present question. But after having examined into this matter with the greatest attention, I feel a more perfect conviction that that treaty afforded the Catholics no claims to have their disabilities removed. There were various articles in the treaty of Limerick, the first referring to the Roman Catholic gentry and the others to the inhabitants of Limerick generally. Now what he meant to contend was, that political privileges were never in the contemplation of either of the parties to the treaty. It had been contended that the passage in the first article, which stated that the Roman Catholics should be allowed the free exercise of their religion without disturbance or molestation, in the same manner as they had been allowed it in the reign of Charles II., meant that they were not to be subjected to any disabilities on account of their religion. Now, with regard to the construction which was to be put on these terms, it appeared from every writer of that age, that, by the free exercise of their religion, was merely meant toleration instead of political power. That such was the meaning of the expression was clearly proved from the mouth of King William, one of the parties to that treaty, who, shortly after the making of it, stated that he was willing to grant to the Catholics the undisturbed exercise of their religion, but not political power: that they should enjoy freedom with respect to their persons and estates, and the exercise of their religion; that with that they ought to be satisfied; and that he could not comprehend how, when they enjoyed this, they could feel themselves justified in disturbing the quiet of the kingdom. The true construction of the treaty, as proved at the very time of making it, was not that which was now put upon it by the friends of Catholic emancipation.” With regard to the general question Mr. Peel confessed that he distrusted the Roman Catholics. He remarked:—“I do not find fault with the faith of any man, and I think quite as highly of a Catholic as of a Protestant; but if on a man’s faith there be founded a scheme of political influence, then we have a right to inquire in to that scheme. And I cannot contemplate the doctrines of absolution, of confession, and of indulgences, without having a strong suspicion that these doctrines are maintained for the purpose of confirming the authority and influence which man exercises over man. What is it to me, whether that authority be called spiritual, or otherwise, if practically it influence man in his conduct in society? Is it because religious doctrines are made subservient to worldly and political purposes, that they are therefore to be excluded from the consideration of the legislature in the discussion of the present question? On the contrary, if the authority derived from these doctrines be only the stronger on account of their being borrowed from religion, and misapplied to worldly purposes, that, in my opinion, furnishes an additional motive for closely investigating the doctrines themselves. When I find the pope issuing bulls to the Irish Catholic bishops, and such documents sent forth to four or five millions of people who possessed not the advantages of education, I must say that they are very likely to influence their practice in life. When I hear, too, such doctrines ascribed to a desire to support the pure faith of Christianity, I cannot help having a lurking suspicion that they are rather intended to maintain a spiritual authority capable of being applied to temporal purposes, which has been said to be extinct, but which I contend, is still existing. In 1807 Pope Pius VII. sent to the Catholic bishops of Ireland a bull, which granted an indulgence of three hundred days to all those persons who should with devout purpose repeat a certain ejaculatory address; and by the same instrument another indulgence of one hundred days was granted, for the repeating of a certain other formula, both of them applicable to souls in purgatory. It is painful to think that such a mockery should be made of religion, in order to press the authority of man; it is disgusting to find such things sent by rational men to rational men, to be disseminated amongst an illiterate and fanatical populace. The friends of emancipation may ridicule, if they choose, the indications of a new reformation which now show themselves in Ireland; but so long as free discussion is allowed, and such means as these are used as means of influence over the ignorant multitude, nothing will deter pious persons from doing all in their power to counteract and undermine such influence. The gentlemen of the Catholic Association will soon find that their political discussions have reacted on the public mind; that a spirit of inquiry has gone forth on the subject of their religion. I have no objection to the professors of the Catholic religion as individuals; I quarrel not with their religious tenets as a system of faith; but I am jealous of the political system which is ingrafted on those tenets, and I think I have a perfect right on the present occasion to consider what has been the influence of that political system in different countries. I do not desire to look at this point as it is to be found illustrated in ancient councils, or in times when bigotry and superstition were prevalent throughout the world; but, viewing the effect of the Catholic religion as it exists in the present day in various countries, in some where it luxuriates in undisputed growth, in those where it is only struggling for supremacy, and in others where it is subordinate to another and a purer system, contemplating it under those different aspects, the result of my observation is, that it is expedient to maintain in this kingdom the mild, mitigated, and temperate predominance of the Protestant church.” With regard to the question as to whether the concessions demanded would restore tranquillity to Ireland, Mr. Peel said that he could not make up his mind to believe that the removal of the disabilities of the Roman Catholics would be attended by such a consummation. If they gained power, he said, they would naturally wish to better the condition of their religious system, to extend its influence over the country, and to draw it into closer connexion with government. The consequence of the change would be to bring the Catholic and Protestant religions into collision in such a manner, as might prove the destruction of the latter. And what greater evil, he asked, could be conceived than the confusion which must prevail for ages during the conflict? If, indeed, he could be persuaded that by concession tranquillity would be restored in Ireland, although he believed that the admission of their claims would endanger our constitution, he would sacrifice his apprehensions of the ultimate result to the attainment of the present benefit. But he could not make up his mind to believe that it would have any such effect. If the friends of emancipation proposed, after having carried their point, to make the religion of the great majority, the religion of the state of Ireland, and open to them all its high offices, he could understand how such a line of policy might appease and tranquillize the Catholics. But this they disavowed. Yet if they proposed to maintain the Protestant establishment as that of the state, there would still be a barrier which the Catholics would endeavour to remove. After passing a censure on the Catholic priesthood for the undue interference exercised at the late elections, and making some observations on the neglect shown by their prelates in restraining such interference, and on the extraordinary asperity of Dr. Doyle’s publications, Mr. Peel concluded thus:—“I have now discharged a most painful duty, the opposing the resolution before the house. I have felt that I had no choice but to state with firmness, but I trust without asperity, the principles which my reason dictates, and which honour and conscience compel me to maintain. The influence or some great names, of some great men, has lately been lost to the cause which I support; but I never adopted my opinions upon it from deference either to high station or to high ability. Keen as the feelings of regret must be, with which the loss of these associates is recollected, it is still a matter of consolation to me, that, in the absence of these individuals I have now an opportunity of showing my adherence to those tenets which I formerly espoused; of showing that, if my opinions be unpopular, I stand by them still, when the influence and authority that may have given them currency are gone; and when it is impossible, I believe, that, in the mind of any human being, I can stand suspected of pursuing them with any view to favour or personal aggrandisement.” The motion was also opposed by Sir John Copley, master of the rolls, in a long, learned, eloquent, and argumentative speech. In his opinion the whole question was one of expediency, and if the concessions demanded could be granted with safety to the civil liberties and to the religious faith of the Protestant community, he admitted that the Catholics were intitled to them. He denied, however, that any such securities had been or could be offered, A blank and bare proposal of concession, he remarked, which neither acknowledged the necessity, nor contained even the elements of such securities, could not be entertained by the house, if it did its duty to the constitution, the religion, and the feelings of the country. Several departed statesmen, he said, had declared in the most decisive terms their determination not to grant Catholic emancipation without special and efficient securities; and the present secretary for foreign affairs himself, and the Irish attorney-general had uttered sentiments to the effect, that it could not be granted unless adequate securities were given to protect the country against the dangers of foreign interference. It became the house, also, he said, to consider well if the concessions are made, what are the feelings of that body of men who should be returned as members of parliament towards the Protestant church for which they would be called upon to legislate. He thought those feelings could not be learned more correctly than from the language of Dr. Doyle, who thus described the church of Ireland:—“She is looked up to, not as the spouse of the Redeemer, but as the handmaid of the ascendancy. The latter, whenever she becomes insolent or forgets her rank, if rank it may be called, rebuke her into a deportment more becoming her situation. They extend their protection to her for their own advantage only; and she, working alternately on their hopes and fears, continues to hold her place as a necessary appendage of the family to which she owes her existence. When indulged, she is indolent; when rebuked, she becomes attentive; she draws tight or relaxes her discipline as it may please, or be determined by her masters. Her eye is ever fixed upon her own interests, and she deems nothing forbidden or unhallowed which may serve to promote them. As those who do an injury can never forgive, she is implacable in her hostility to the church which she supplanted; and at this day, she seems indifferent to all things else, but to the concealment of her riches, and the persecution of popery. She occasionally revolts against her fellow-servants, who lay bare her spoils, who tell of her frauds and oppressions, who remind her of her origin, and upbraid her with the profligacy of her misspent life. But she is much more frequently employed in forming offensive and defensive leagues with her fellows in the corporations, showing the advantages of injustice and oppression, in confounding the charter of her servitude with the title-deeds of her employers, in asserting her claim to a tithe of the land and labour of the kingdom, and proving to the satisfaction of the Christian community that, though she receive the patrimony of the poor, she is not bound to exercise towards them a single act of mercy.” Such language as this, said Sir J. Copley, is not confined to the individual who used it; the same sentiments are avowed by some of the leading men of the Catholic body, and proclaimed aloud in the Catholic Association. He asked, therefore, when such are the sentiments of a Roman Catholic bishop when speaking of that establishment for which Catholics, elected probably by his influence, would be called to legislate, whether the house would consent that such men, returned by such influence, should have the power of legislating for a church thus described by one of their own communion, without insisting upon securities by which all danger might be averted? The debate was closed by Mr. Canning, who had been pointedly alluded to throughout the whole of Sir J. Copley’s speech, and, after disposing of its argument, he ironically vindicated himself for not having concerted measures of security with the Pope of Rome. Government had not the same facilities, he said, with the court of Rome as was possessed by several foreign courts, as those of Prussia, Saxony, and the Netherlands. He had seen in some popular tracts, that to correspond with the pope was high-treason; and, therefore, when his holiness addressed a complimentary note to our present gracious sovereign, he, as secretary of state, took the opinion of the great law-officers on the subject of a reply; and they declared that if he did answer the pope’s letter, he would incur the penalties of a premunire. Now the law-officers who gave this opinion were R. Gifford and Sir John Copley himself. I, being an ignorant person, next looked into Burn’s Justice, and there I found that the penalties attached to a premunire, were attainder, forfeiture of goods, incapacity to bring an action, and liability to be slain by any one with impunity. As this was a matter touching life and fortune, therefore he could not be expected, after having acquired such knowledge, to go to the Pope of Rome; and yet to the pope they must go if they would have any security. Mr. Canning declared that it was the intention of Mr. Pitt to cany this question, to the truth of which assertion he was ready to depose before any tribunal. He avowed his opinion that the cause had lost ground in the house as well as in the country; but he was convinced that all unfavourable impressions must give way to the effect of repeated discussions; that which right reason, humanity, and justice demanded could not fail to find an echo in the breasts of Englishmen. On a division the motion was lost by two hundred and seventy-six against two hundred and seventy-four. In consequence of this result, the order of the day in the house of lords, for taking into consideration the Catholic petition, was discharged on the motion of Lord Lansdowne, “who feared to increase, in the present state of feeling in Ireland, the disastrous conviction that a majority of both houses in parliament was opposed to a consideration of the claims of their Catholic brethren.”

THE CORN-LAWS.

Ministers had pledged themselves to bring the corn-law question before the house this session; and great anxiety was felt throughout the nation on this subject. It had been originally intended to introduce the subject simultaneously in both houses; but the illness of Lord Liverpool prevented it being brought forward in the upper house. Mr. Canning introduced the subject in the commons on the 1st of March, when he expressed his surprise that so much of hostile feeling should have been allowed to enter into the consideration of a question where none ought to have been found, and that this asperity should arise where there was no necessity to fly to extremes, and where the difficulties, in point of fact, were less than they were stated in argument. Every body admitted, he said, the necessity of protecting the agricultural interests; the only question was the mode and degree in which the protection should be administered. Of late years three modes of protection, without prohibition, had been proposed: the first, that of Mr. Ricardo, which imposed a duty of 20s. per quarter, to be diminished every year till it should have reached a minimum of about 10s.; the second proposed to begin with a duty of 16s., to be gradually lowered to 10s.; and the third was to impose a duty of 15s, or 16s. once for all, without any reference to the price. All these plans he been devised by persons generally favourable to a free trade in corn; but to all of them there lay the objection that when a pressure came it would bring with it distress to the agriculturists. Experience, he said, proved, that to impose a fixed duty without any reference to the variation of prices was objectionable and insufficient, because it was inevitably sometimes too high, and at other times too low with reference to the state of the country. It was therefore more advisable to adopt a scale of duties, which should vary in a relative proportion to the state of the country. He moved that—“Whenever the average price of wheat made up and published in manner required by law, shall be 60s., and under 61s. per quarter, the duty shall be for one quarter £1. And in respect of every integral shilling, by which such price shall be above 60s., such duty shall be decreased by 2s., until such price shall be 70s. Whenever such price shall be at or above 70s., the duty shall be for every quarter Is. Whenever such price shall be under 60s., and not under 59s., the duty shall be for every quarter £1. 2s. And in respect of each integral shilling, or any part of each integral shilling, by which such price shall be tinder 59s., such duty shall be increased by 2s.” Mr. Canning moved resolutions similar to the above on barley, oats, rye, peas, beans, wheat-meal, and flour, oatmeal, maize, &c. If the produce of, and imported from any British possession in North America, or elsewhere out of Europe, he moved that wheat should be admitted at 5s. per quarter, until the price of British wheat should be 65s. per quarter; and that whenever such price should be at or above 65s., the duty should be for every quarter only 6d. Similar resolutions were also moved on other grains coming from the same parts of the world. Mr. Canning’s last resolution on this subject was, “That it is the opinion of this committee, that all the said duties shall be regulated and determined from week to week by the average prices of corn, made up in the manner required by law; which prices shall, at the several ports of the United Kingdom, determine the several rates of the said duties for and during the week next after the receipt of the proper certificates of such average prices at such ports respectively.” The debate on these resolutions was postponed for a week, that every appearance of precipitancy in such an important measure might be avoided. When the discussion was resumed, the motion for the house going into committee was opposed by Lord Clive, Sir E. Knatchbull, and other leading members of the landed interest. Their opposition rested on the grounds that domestic agriculture was entitled to all the protection which parliament could give it, even in the shape of a prohibition; that it was unjust to expose the home-grown, oppressed with taxes, and obliged to purchase costly labour, to a competition with the farmers of foreign countries, where taxation was light and labour cheap; that the plan was only experimental in its nature, in a matter where all experiment was mischief; that its effect would be to reduce prices much below what could be considered a fair remunerating price to the grower; and that, while it thus deprived the agriculturist even of the imperfect protection which he at present enjoyed, it would ultimately prove injurious to the public welfare, by throwing poor lands out of cultivation, thus leaving the country at every moment dependent for its food on foreigners. The chancellor of the exchequer and Mr. Peel replied, and the opposition to the speaker’s leaving the chair was not pressed to a division. In the committee, however, an amendment was moved to the effect of raising the medium price by taking 64s. instead of 60s. as the point at which what might be considered the prohibitory duty of 20s. should attach, on which the house divided. But this was lost; and an amendment, proposed by Mr. Whitmore, for an exactly opposite purpose, namely, to reduce the medium price at which the duty of 20s. should attach, shared the same fate. During the progress of the bill through the committee other alterations were likewise proposed, almost all tending to the benefit of the home grower. Thus it was proposed to raise the medium price of rye, peas, and beans, from 35s. to 40s.; to lower the quantity of oatmeal, on which, as being equivalent to a quarter of oats, a given duty should be paid from one hundred and ninety lbs. to one hundred and seventy-six lbs.; and a similar attempt was made to raise the duty on wheat-flour. All these amendments were lost; but ministers themselves, from the representations of county meetings both in England and Scotland, raised the medium price of barley to 32s., and the duty to 12s.; and the medium price of oats from 21s. to 25s., and the duty to 8s. This concession to the agriculturists gave great offence to those who advocated free trade. Mr. Wood told ministers that they had allowed themselves to be bullied by them; to which Mr. Peel calmly answered, that he did not see how a proper and justifiable addition of 2s. to the price of barley could require such an extravagant expenditure of indignation and abuse. The report was brought up on the 27th of March; and the resolutions were carried, after a division on an amendment moved by Mr. Hume. A bill founded on them was brought in; and on the second reading the opposition to it on the part of the landed interest was renewed with undiminished hostility. Sir Thomas Lethbridge described the bill as one which ought to be entitled, “An act for the more effectual encouragement of speculation in the corn-trade, the more rapid diminution of the growth of grain in Great Britain, and the better encouragement of the growth of grain in other countries for the supply of the British market.” He moved as an amendment, that the bill should be read a second time on that day six months; and its supporters gave ministers to understand that the success of the bill would deprive them, in regard to certain other questions connected with expenditure, of the customary support of their most valued friends. If the price of corn was reduced, they said, everything else ought equally to be reduced. Were ministers then ready, they asked, to reduce the taxes? The defence of the bill was chiefly undertaken by Mr. Grant, the vice-president of the board of trade, who entered into an elaborate view of the whole question. Possessing, as the landowners did, the law of 1815, it was necessary, he said, to show some good reason for the change proposed; and he found a most satisfactory reason in the fact that the law had failed in every one of the objects which had been contemplated in its enactment. The intention of that law had been to effect three objects; namely, uniformity of price, protection to the farmer, and independence of foreign supplies; but it was notorious that the law had not answered any one of these purposes. The amendment was pressed to a division; and the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of two hundred and forty-three to seventy-eight. It subsequently passed a committee with no other alteration than a clause, authorizing the king to prohibit, by an order in council, the importation of grain from any country where British vessels should be subject to a higher duty than was imposed on the vessels of such country coming to British ports. The bill was finally read a third time, and passed on the 12th of April, on which day the house adjourned for the Easter holidays.

DISSOLUTION OF THE MINISTRY.

About the middle of February the Earl of Liverpool was suddenly attacked by a paralytic stroke. By the end of March his case became hopeless, and Mr. Canning was summoned at that time by the king to Windsor. It was well known that dissensions existed in the cabinet, and that serious difficulties were created by a large portion of it, hostile in the highest degree to Mr. Canning. At the same time a majority of the commons, as well as of the people at large, called upon him to take up the mantle of the premier, and to direct the councils of Great Britain. Mr. Canning was called to this interview with the king merely in his capacity of privy-counsellor, to assist the king in the reconstruction of the cabinet. He recommended that a ministry should be formed unanimous in the rejection of Catholic emancipation; to forward which arrangement he professed his own willingness to retire from office. This advice had the appearance of great disinterestedness and self-denial; but Mr. Canning must have known that it was utterly impracticable: those, indeed, on whom it would have thrown the responsibility of government saw the embarrassment such an arrangement would produce, and instantly rejected it. His majesty now proposed that the plan of administration should be unchanged; and that some anti-Catholic peer should be appointed premier, to prevent such increase of adherents to the Catholic cause as a minister of that rank, being its known advocate, would necessarily promote. To this arrangement, however, Mr. Canning objected, declaring that he would never degrade himself by forming part of an administration which considered a person entertaining those views which he entertained concerning the Catholic question as disqualified to fill the highest office in the state. By this declaration, in effect, Mr. Canning made known to the king that his services could only be secured by the highest office; and it seems quite clear from other circumstances that such was his aim. But this resolution was the cause of breaking up the Liverpool cabinet. At the same time Mr. Canning obtained the object of his ambition: aided by the general voice, he was made premier. His exaltation, however, was the signal of retreat to other members of the cabinet. Mr. Peel had previously declared that if such an event took place he should decline office; and Lord Eldon resigned, ostensibly on account of his advanced age, but in reality on Mr. Peel’s principles, namely, that he could not co-operate with a friend to Catholic emancipation as premier. On the 12th of April the king had received, in addition to these, the resignations, also, the Duke of Wellington, and Lords Bexley, Westmoreland, and Bathurst. Nevertheless, the king confirmed the appointment of Mr. Canning; and it was announced in the house of commons on the same evening, where it was received with deafening shouts of applause. Mr. Canning now proceeded to reconstruct the cabinet. The new ministers were, the Duke of Clarence, as lord high-admiral of England; Lord Anglesea, as master-general of the ordnance, with a seat in the cabinet; Lord Dudley, Mr. Sturges Bourne, and Mr. Robinson, nominated respectively for the foreign, home, and colonial departments; the Duke of Devonshire, as lord-chamberlain; the Duke of Portland, as privy-seal; and Lord Harrowby, as president of the council. Lord Bexley retracted his resignation and retained office; and Lord Palmerston, with Messrs. Huskisson and Wynne, likewise remained in the cabinet. Sir John Leach, Sir Anthony Hart, and Sir James Scarlett, were respectively made master of the rolls, vice-chancellor, and attorney-general. Mr. Canning occupied the two offices of first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer. A negociation had been opened with the Marquis of Lansdowne to supply several places; but no official appointments resulted from it, although a large body of Whigs offered their support to the administration. The new ministry was gazetted on the 27th of April; and on the 30th his majesty held a court, at which Lords Eldon, Westmoreland, and Bathurst, as well as Mr. Peel, severally had audiences to resign their seals of office; and the new ministers kissed hands on their appointments. Mr. Canning was loudly cheered by the populace in going to and returning from the palace; but he soon discovered that his high office was not a bed of roses. “The premiership had for twelve years been a bed of slumber; it now fell into the hands of one who made it a bed of feverish anxiety and bitter wakefulness,—George Canning, the first debater, the most dexterous politician, and the happiest wit of the house; the most perplexed, unhappy, and disappointed of ministers.”

REASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT.

The house of commons reassembled on the 1st of May. So much time, however, had been lost through the dissolution of the old administration, and the hostility of parties now consumed so much time, that very little business was completed during the session. At its meeting the public were eager to learn something of the causes which had separated men who had acted so long together in good and in evil report, and which had accomplished an union between parties and individuals whose contest had generally been a war to the death. The public had not to remain long on the tip-toe of expectation, for no sooner had the house met than the strife of words commenced.

EXPLANATIONS OF MEMBERS, AND HOSTILITY TO THE MINISTRY.

On the motion that a new writ should issue for the borough of Ashburton, for the election of a member in place of Mr. S. Bourne, Mr. Peel said, that as the motion was connected with the succession to that office which he had resigned, he trusted that the house would allow him the opportunity of explaining the grounds on which he had retired from the situation of secretary of state, disclaiming at the same time all intention of opposing the new government, and carrying himself free from every appearance of a factious spirit. He remarked:—“I retired from office because, from the first moment of my public life, I have taken an active and decided part on a great and vital question, that of the extension of political privileges to the Roman Catholics. For eighteen years I have constantly offered an uncompromising, but, I hope, a temperate, fair, and constitutional resistance to every proposition for granting to them any further concessions. My opposition is founded on principle. I think the continuance of those bars which prevent the acquisition of political power by the Catholics necessary for the maintenance of the constitution, and for the interests of the established church. It is not merely that my honourable friend differs in opinion from me on this important question, but the change in administration occasions the transfer of all that influence and power which belongs to the office of a prime minister into the hands of one who will use it for the purpose of forwarding an object which I have always resisted. It is not a transfer of that influence and power from one ordinary man to another ordinary man, but from the most able opponent of the Catholic claims to their most zealous and eloquent advocate.” Mr. Peel then vindicated the course taken by his late colleagues in resigning office; the act, he said, was “a splendid example of disinterested conduct to all public men.” He vindicated them from the charge of acting in concert, or in the spirit of cabal; declaring that he not only did not hold any communication with the lord-chancellor, as had been said, but that he did not even know hip lordship’s intentions The very first person, he said, to whom I stated my inability to acquiesce in the appointment of my right honourable friend as prime minister, was my right honourable friend himself; and I did not then known the intention of any other member of the administration. He added:—“A separation from my right honourable friend, with whom I have acted so cordially on every point but one, is to me a source of deep regret, mitigated, however, in some degree by the recollection that I have done everything becoming my character to prevent it. I retire from the service of my sovereign without any personal regret, except upon one point, namely, that I can no longer avail myself of those opportunities which office afforded of introducing a system of improvement into the existing laws. To effect that object is the chief desire of my life; and I have the satisfaction of reflecting that, during the five years I have held the office of home-secretary, every institution coming under my immediate cognizance has been subject to such reforms as were considered advantageous and useful. I have likewise the satisfaction of recollecting that every law which I found on the statute-book at my entrance into office, imposing extraordinary restrictions on the liberties of the subject, has been either modified or altogether repealed. I may be a Tory, but I have the satisfaction of observing that such has been my conduct. Tory, as I am, it is gratifying to me to reflect that no law stands on the statute-book, in connection with my name, which has not for its object the mitigation of the severity of the criminal law, and the prevention of any abuse in the administration of justice.” This speech was received with loud cheers, and elicited much applause from Mr. Brougham, who at the same time declared his determination to support the policy of the new administration. On the contrary, Mr. Dawson, a brother-in-law to Mr. Peel, and late under-secretary for the home department, damaged his reputation by his explanation, inasmuch as he allowed himself to get into a passion with the premier. Mr. Dawson insisted that Mr. Canning was bound to declare immediately what he intended to do with the Catholic question, and also to bring it forward without delay. In reply Mr. Canning said, that throughout a continued intercourse with Mr. Peel he had uniformly found his conduct distinguished by the same feeling and high principle which were so strongly pourtrayed in the speech he had just delivered; he had behaved, he said, throughout with manliness and candour. He continued:—“The house is greatly mistaken if they imagine my situation to be one of gratified ambition. From the beginning of the discussions on the Catholic claims I felt that the separation of my honourable friend and myself was inevitable, and not far remote. Would to God I could now persuade myself that his retirement will be but for a short time! Had the necessity which has made the retirement of one of as inevitable been left in my hands, my decision would have been for my own resignation, and against that of my right honourable friend. My first object was to quit office; my next to remain in it, with all my old colleagues exactly—exactly on the same terms as usual regarding this very Catholic question.” Mr. Canning then went into a long detail concerning the circumstances which preceded his appointment; and he concluded with saying,—“I sit where I now do by no seeking of my own. I proposed at first my own exclusion: it was not accepted. Then conditions were offered to me, which I refused, because they were accompanied by an admission of my own disqualification, to which if I had submitted, I should have been for ever degraded. In the year 1822 I was appointed to an office fraught with wealth, honour, and ambition. From that office I was called, not on my own seeking, but contrary to my own wish; and I made a sacrifice—a sacrifice, be it remembered, of no inconsiderable nature to a poor man—and the offer of a share in the administration was made to me without any stipulation. But if that offer had been made with this condition, that, if the highest place in the administration should become vacant, the opinions which I held on the Catholic question were to be a bar to my succeeding to it, I would turn the offer back with the disdain with which I turned back that of serving under a Protestant premier, as the badge of my Helotism, and the condition of my place.” The only parties left to explain their conduct were those members of opposition who had quitted their former station and were settled beside the new ministry. This duty was discharged by Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Brougham. Their support was defended by Sir Francis as likely to promote enlightened principles of government both at home and abroad, and especially the cause of religious liberty. He had no doubt but the country would soon be operated upon by sentiments of sound policy, justice, and liberality. Mr. Brougham maintained that he and his party, in supporting the present ministry, were acting consistently, as well as disinterestedly. For himself, he said, he had quitted a situation, eminent beyond his hopes or merits, on the opposition benches, where he was surrounded by one of the largest, one of the most honourable, and one of the most disinterested oppositions ever known in the house, an opposition consisting of men who do what they think best for their country; though in doing so they should feel sure that they were helping to confirm their adversaries in office. “I have quitted this station, enough to satisfy the ambition of the proudest man, under arrangements which made my own acceptance of office impossible. My opinions on foreign and domestic policy have led me to this step with the sincere desire of furnishing a useful assistance to the liberal sentiments of Mr. Canning—including the Irish question. Not that I am for giving it that prominent situation in the public councils which is required by some; but I wished that it should derive every possible advantage from the junction of the two parties which have divided the house and the country, but are now united in a cordial, hearty, and uniform support of such measures as should be deemed best for the country.”