Chapter XXXVII: {george IV. 1827—1828} (2)

The house of lords met on the 2nd of May; and in that branch of the legislature more explanations were given than in the house of commons. On the first opportunity Lord Eldon declared that the accusations made against him, of having attempted an unconstitutional dictation to his sovereign, was a base and scandalous falsehood. His opinion was, and always had been, that if the claims of the Catholics were conceded, there was an end of the religious liberties of this country, and that with its religious liberties its civil freedom would perish. Holding such opinions as these it was impossible for him to coincide with the views of the new minister, whether those views were immediately to be carried into execution, or suspended for the better securing of his purpose. Could he, he asked, honestly remain in office under an administration formed on principles at variance with his own? He could not allow that the new administration had been formed on principles similar to that of Lord Liverpool. That nobleman had been a zealous, honest, and candid opponent of the Catholic claims; but the present premier would be as zealous in supporting them. As to the mode of his resignation, his lordship wholly disclaimed the imputation of having concerted it with Mr. Peel; that gentleman, for whom he entertained the highest regard and esteem, knew nothing about his sending in his resignation; and he believed the same to be the case with every other minister who had retired. As the retirement of the Duke of Wellington, not only from the administration, but from the command of the army, which was not a cabinet office, seemed to indicate hostility of a more decided character than that of any other seceder, it had excited greater interest. On both these points his grace entered into a full and manly explanation. After adverting to the press which had endeavoured to blacken his character, he remarked, that he was not requested to come and receive explanations concerning evident omissions in the letter first sent to him, nor was he referred to any person for information on these points; although, as he afterwards learned, his colleagues had been invited to go to the minister, and receive any explanations which they might require, or the minister himself had gone to them. Still he would not let any pique of this kind stop an amicable communication, and in that spirit he carried on his correspondence, and wished to contrive means of continuing in his majesty’s councils. When, however, he found that the right honourable gentleman was to be at the head of affairs, he doubted whether he could, consistently with his principles, join the administration; and under these circumstances he declined office. He considered that the principles of Lord Liverpool’s policy had been abandoned, and that the measures of a government constituted on the principles of Mr. Canning’s sentiments would be viewed with suspicion by foreign governments, and would give no satisfaction to the country; and therefore he requested Mr. Canning to communicate to his majesty that he wished to be excused from forming a part of the new cabinet. Would he not, he asked, have degraded himself, and deceived the public, if he had sat in a cabinet with a gentleman at its head whom he felt bound to oppose? It was no answer to tell him that the present cabinet acted upon the same principles with that of which Lord Liverpool had been at the head. The two cabinets materially differed: that of Lord Liverpool was formed on the principle of maintaining the laws as they now were, whilst that of Mr. Canning was founded on the principle of subverting them. “Those,” remarked his grace, “who formed part of Lord Liverpool’s cabinet knew well what it was to which they pledged themselves, for they knew that his lordship was conscientiously opposed to all changes in the existing form of government; but those who coalesced with Mr. Canning had no idea how far their coalition was to carry them,—for he was the most able, active, and zealous partisan of those changes with which the country was at present threatened. The principles of the noble earl were principles by which any man might safely abide; the principles of Mr. Canning fluctuate daily, and depend upon transitory reasons of temporary expediency. These are the conscientious reasons of my resignation.” As for the absurd calumny, that he had threatened the king with his resignation unless he was made prime minister, the duke said it hardly deserved an answer. “Could any man believe,” asked his grace, “that after I had raised myself to the command of the army, I would have given it up for any but conscientious reasons? I say, raised myself, because I know that, whatever his majesty’s kindness had been towards me, he could not have exalted me through all the grades of military rank to the very highest if I had not rendered him and my country some service of which he entertained a high sense. Will any man then believe that when I was in a situation which enabled me to recommend to the notice of his majesty all my former friends and companions in arms, and to reward them according to their merits for the exertions which they had formerly made under my command in the field, I would voluntarily resign a situation so consonant to my feelings and habits for the mere empty ambition of being placed at the head of the government?” In regard to his resignation of the command of the army, his grace said, that although it was not a cabinet office, yet it was one which placed its possessor in a constant and confidential relation with the king and his government. With the prime minister the commander-in-chief is in communication every day, he has not a control even over the army, the chief direction of which is placed in the minister’s hands; at the same time the premier himself cannot withdraw any part of the army from a foreign station without consulting the commander-in-chief; he cannot make up his budget, or introduce any reform into the organization of the army without seeking his opinion. No political sentiments, however, would have prevented him from retaining this office under ordinary circumstances, but from the tone and tenor of the communications he had received from his majesty, from the nature of the invitation given to him by the right; honourable gentleman in his first letter, and from the contents of the last, which he had received from Mr. Canning by his majesty’s commands, he saw that he could not remain with credit to himself or advantage to the country: his line of conduct had not been hastily adopted, though he had been wantonly and unjustly abused. The other seceding peers justified their retirement generally on the same ground of political principles which had been taken by the Duke of Wellington, except that Lord Melville and Lord Bathurst expressed an opinion, that without such men as his grace, Lord Eldon, and Mr. Peel, no administration could be formed possessing sufficient stability and capacity for the government of the country. The task of defending the new administration fell to the lot of Lord Goderich, who declared that, so far from casting any imputation of conspiracy among, and cabal on his former colleagues, he believed that if there had been more communication among them, much of the mischief and disorder which had occurred might have been prevented. If the government was not constituted in a satisfactory manner, it was not the fault of either himself or his honourable and noble friends. Mr. Canning had sought to keep the elements of the late ministry together; but they had fallen away: and was he to say to his majesty, “I will run away, and leave you in such a predicament as no sovereign was ever placed in before?” The Marquis of Lansdowne finally explained the principles, and defended the propriety of the coalition of parties; and he justified it on the grounds which had been made in the lower house—the identity between the principles of his party and the spirit of the measures which government had for some time been pursuing, in regard both to foreign and domestic policy. From his statement it appeared that the overtures of alliance had come under the sanction of the king from the ministry; for, he said, when the individuals with whom the formation of a government rested brought to him his majesty’s commands, he felt it no less his duty than his interest maturely to consider them, and that after this consideration he felt it his duty to obey them. The union which had taken place, he said, was not the result of a sudden impulse; for three years ago he had supported the just views of government in repairing the finances, widening the resources, improving the commerce and navigation of the country, and in cultivating relations of amity and friendship with that new world whose treasures were now opening to them. In conclusion, he admitted in their full extent the reasons which had been given by the noble lords for their several resignations, and the statements which they had made in accounting for that remarkable coincidence; but he could not help expressing his surprise that government had been able to go on so long, being conducted, as it now appeared, by ministers who did not think proper to communicate with one another upon the most important question which could be agitated among them. Other noble lords, as the Earls of Mansfield and Winchilsea, and Lord Ellenborough, expressed their determined hostility to the new government, and a total want of confidence in its leader. Lord Ellenborough remarked, that it appeared clear to him, and he believed to others, that some deceit was about to be practised. Either his majesty, who had permitted this administration to be formed with the understanding that the Catholic question was to be given up, was deceived, or the hopes held out to Ireland, that the new administration was to extend to that country the peace and tranquillity which that boon alone could bestow, were fallacious. Earls Mansfield and Winchilsea expressed a determination of bringing the principles of the new cabinet at once to the test; and gave notice of motions on the Catholic question and the state of the nation. Neither of these motions, however, was ever brought to a hearing; and the retired ministers exhibited as little concert out of office as they had displayed in their resignation. In one matter, however, they were all agreed, that of hostility to the present government. In both houses a desultory warfare was carried on against it: single individuals taking upon themselves at intervals the task of castigating its members. In the commons Sir Thomas Lethbridge chiefly undertook this task; but, although he performed it with much pertinacity, he was unfortunately deficient in speech. In the lords the most powerful assistance on the side of the seceders was found in Lord Grey, who announced his want of confidence in the ministry. He gave, his lordship said, all due credit to those members of his party who coalesced with that ministry for disinterestedness, but he could see nothing in it which called for his support. It was said to be formed on the principle of Lord Liverpool’s government. That principle consisted in the exclusion of the Catholic question: was the Catholic question then not to be made a cabinet measure? If so, his determination was taken; it would prevent him from giving support to the government. His lordship then reviewed the whole political career of Mr. Canning, and expressed himself opposed to every part of it; attacking with peculiar severity the noted declaration of the premier of calling the republics of the new world into existence. It was true, he said, that Mr. Canning was called a friend of civil and religious liberty, and that he supported Catholic emancipation, at the same time he proclaimed his opposition to a repeal of the test and corporation acts. He would not dwell on his known opposition to parliamentary reform; that question had not been so uniformly supported, nor had public opinion been so expressed in its favour as that any one should make it a _sine qua non_ in joining an administration; but he could not conceal from himself the fact, that within a few years numerous laws had been passed hostile to civil liberty, every one of which had received the right honourable gentleman’s dissent. Unless he could retrace his steps, and erase some that remained in the statute-book, no confidence ought to be reposed in him as a friend to civil liberty. His lordship added, that he differed from the known opponents of government on most questions as widely as the poles were asunder; but neither could he join those who supported it: the only course, therefore, left him was to pursue the same principles which he professed through life. When the measures of government agreed with those principles he would support them; when repugnant, they should have his opposition.

OPINIONS OF HIS MAJESTY ON THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

{GEORGE IV. 1827—1828}

The question of Catholic emancipation was soon set at rest for the present. In an interview which the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London had with his majesty, soon after Mr. Canning’s elevation, he stated “that he was as firmly fixed as his father had been, in opposition to the pretensions of the papists.” This declaration was made public in a meeting of prelates at Lambeth-palace, and announced by the bishop in the house of lords, so that it was evident that this was a measure not to be forced. On this declaration, indeed, the motions previously named, which would virtually have been a renewal of the discussion, were withdrawn, and the Catholic question was thereby laid aside for a time. The test acts, no less than Catholic emancipation had been a principal bond of union among the opposition; but neither was this urged; so that every subject which could have brought any party in the coalition to the test, was avoided. Under these circumstances, towards the close of the session some of the Whigs took office. Thus Lord Lansdowne was appointed secretary for the home department; Lord Carlisle, privy-seal; and Mr. Tierney, master of the mint. But about this time the opposition received a more regular form and abler direction. Hitherto Mr. Peel had acted with moderation and urbanity, but he now gave indications of decided hostility. In discovering this Mr. Canning said, that he rejoiced to see the standard openly raised: he always preferred direct hostility to hollow professions or pretended neutrality.

MOTION ON THE CHANCELLOR’S JURISDICTION IN BANKRUPTCY.

On the 22nd of May, Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor again brought the subject of delays in the court of chancery before the commons. The delays, he said, which disgraced that court, and the arrears of business under which it was sinking, were the consequences of the system of the court itself. An additional judge had in a former year been appointed, and yet the arrear of business had not been extinguished. To adopt the language of Mr. Shadwell, not three angels could discharge the duties of the office of lord-chancellor, constituted as that office now was. He proposed, therefore, to withdraw all matters of bankruptcy from the great seal: matters which had not originally been subject to that jurisdiction, but had been made so by parliament, and which were of themselves sufficient to occupy the attention of any single judge. He moved, therefore, “that this house do resolve itself into a committee of the whole house to consider of the statute of the 13th year of Elizabeth, and of certain subsequent statutes, which gave to the lord-chancellor of England jurisdiction in matters of bankruptcy.” This motion was opposed by the attorney-general, Mr. Brougham, and Dr. Lushington, the former of whom vindicated the present system at great length. It was an unsound principle, he said, to make places fit to particular men. On the contrary, they ought to seek men fit to particular places; and it would be easy to show that, with three efficient judges, such as they had now got, there was not the least necessity of subtracting from the court of chancery any part of the jurisdiction which it at present possessed. He argued that there were more cases in the court of chancery than could be considered during the year, and that with the present judges in the court of chancery all those in arrear would be speedily dismissed. Mr. D. W. Harvey supported the motion, and entered into an exposition of the mischiefs of the bankrupt-law as at present administered by the commissioners, whom he described as being in general, either young men possessing capacity without experience, or briefless old men possessing experience without capacity, and to whom the appointment was an act of charity. Above all he complained of the inconsistency of those who now pretended that all the evils would be removed by the mere change of men, while the system must remain unchanged. All the splendid denunciations, he said, which had thrilled through every bosom in that house and in the country, were to be considered only as party tactics, were to be looked upon as the result of disappointed ambition. Professional advancement being obtained, those who had been most loud in their attacks upon the late Lord-chancellor Eldon, had now become the warmest eulogists of his merits. The house was now told, that, if in the vehemence of debate, anything had been said which was calculated to injure his character, it ought to be considered as nothing, as the mere accidental effusion of party spirit. It fell to the lot of Mr. Brougham to defend certain members from this charge of political delinquency, which he did with his usual tact, It had been said, he remarked, that a wondrous change was now visible in various members of parliament; that they were all opposed to the alterations in the court of chancery which they had formerly advocated; and that now being in office they had no objection to the arrangements of that court, though out of office they had poured forth against them torrents of fiery indignation. It was assumed, also, for the purpose of an unfair attack, that he himself, and those who thought with him, had changed their opinions on the subject. Now on what measure of government, on what chapter of policy, on what officer of state, on what judge of the land, had his opinions or principles changed? It had been said by those who contended that Lord Eldon was not to blame for the arrears in the court, that no man could get through the business. But if the business of the court had increased, the means of disposing it had likewise increased by the establishment of the vice-chancellor’s court. But instead of having an efficient chancellor, vice-chancellor, and master of the rolls, there had always been either an unfit vice-chancellor, or an unfit master of the rolls, which left the court in the same situation as before the vice-chancellor’s bill passed. But it was different now: they had as efficient a master of the rolls as could be required; and of the vice-chancellor he would say, that he had been one of the most experienced practitioners in the court of chancery. The new lord chancellor, also, was a person of great legal talents, and of an independent mind. From all this, he had a confident expectation that the business of the court would be despatched in proper time. On a division the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and thirty-four against thirty-seven.

MOTIONS REGARDING THE STAMP-DUTY AND CHEAP PUBLICATIONS.

During the troubled state of the country in 1819 and 1820, certain legislative measures had been adopted, known by the name of the Six Acts, for the purpose of checking the course of sedition. Some of these had expired by the lapse of time; but one, which subjected cheap periodicals issued for the purposes of agitation to a stamp-duty still remained on the statute-book. On the 31st of May, Mr. Hume brought forward a motion for the repeal of this statute. He had intended, he said, to have made this motion during the preceding session, but he congratulated himself upon the delay, as the changes which had taken place in the government were favourable to the question he now advocated. But Mr. Hume soon found himself mistaken. Mr. Canning and others when in opposition had condemned this statute as a tyrannical and unwarrantable attack against the liberty of the press; but to a man they now resisted the motion, and abused and ridiculed the mover. It was lost by a majority of one hundred and twenty against ten.

THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

The new corn-law, which had been sent to the house of lords before the recess, only furnished them with an opportunity of triumph. It had originated in the late cabinet of which the Duke of Wellington was a member; but notwithstanding this, he moved an amendment, prohibiting the removal of foreign corn from bond until the price of wheat should have reached sixty-six shillings per quarter. This proposal, though at variance with the principle of the bill, which provided for the admission of corn at all times on payment of a duty proportionate to the average market price, was supported by the high Tory party and peers, who preferred their own interests as landowners, so that ministers were left in a minority of one hundred and twenty-two to one hundred and thirty-three. The consequence of this amendment was, that, when the bill returned to the commons, ministers rejected it altogether; it being fatal, they said, to the principle of the bill, and inconsistent with its application. As for the supporters of the amendment they were abused both within and without the walls of St. Stephen, as men who had sacrificed the public good to forward the purposes of mere faction. Even Mr. Canning, imagining that the opposition was directed personally against himself, described the Duke of Wellington as a tool in the hands of more crafty intriguers. He could not, he said, exclude from his consideration that even so great a man as the Duke of Wellington had been made an instrument in the hands of others on that occasion. As to the members by which that amendment was carried, he asserted, that he believed it impossible that such discordant materials could have been brought together by a conviction of its merits. He looked upon the union not as arising from the merits of the question, but from some deep-rooted design to produce another effect in the other house, or that house, or elsewhere. There was no reason, however, to believe that this step arose from the spirit of faction as a whole; and Mr. Canning’s language was, to say the least of it, indiscreet; language, which pique and provocation might account for, but which neither sound sense nor good feeling could justify. In consequence of the failure of this bill it became necessary to prevent a recurrence of that alarm which had arisen last year on account of scarcity. A temporary bill was therefore prepared and suffered to pass both houses, permitting the release of foreign corn from bond, on the same scale of duties as that proposed by the measure which had been abandoned.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Mr. Canning brought forward the budget on the 1st of June. The method which he adopted in his statement, was, to state first the financial situation of the country at the end of the preceding year; then to combine and compare that one year with the several years which had preceded it; and finally, to suggest the provision to be made for the service of the present year, and the grounds on which he felt himself justified in looking forward with confidence to the result. By a review of income and expenditure during the four past years, it appeared from his statements, that, on an expenditure of £230,000,000, including the annual sinking-fund of £5,000,000, there was an apparent deficiency of £1,265,687. Against this, however, was to be placed the amount of advances from the exchequer, either in loans to carry on public works, or for beneficial purchases, which the public had in possession as available securities for repayment. The amount of excess in these advances for the four years, was near £2,000,000, so that in fact there remained about £1,100,000, as a real surplus of income beyond expenditure. Mr. Canning suggested the propriety of providing for the temporary deficiency by an issue of exchequer-bills. The supplies which he demanded for the year amounted to £57,500,000, including the sinking-fund; and the various items of which they were composed were all voted without opposition. At the conclusion of his statements Mr. Canning said, that he intended to bring the expenditure of the country to the lowest possible scale consistent with the public service, and that it was the determination of government to apply their best efforts to the matter, and to call the house into council on the subject. His financial statements, indeed, were made with such ability and candour, that they secured for him the confidence both of the house and the country.

CORRUPT BOROUGHS.

As is usual in the first session of a new parliament, the reports of election-committees disclosed scenes of gross bribery. Samples of corruption were brought before the house by Colonel Maberly and Mr. Sykes from the boroughs of Northampton and Leicester.

Enormous sums had been abstracted from corporation funds for the purpose of defraying the expenses of candidates for the boroughs. Colonel Maberly moved, with reference to the borough of Northampton, that a select committee be appointed to take into consideration the petition which had been presented to the house, complaining of the conduct of the corporation. The attorney-general, in reply, said, that if the case were really as it had been stated, and if the corporation had been guilty of the breach of trust mentioned, then there was an undoubted remedy in the court of chancery, and he argued that this was the ordinary and legal mode of obtaining redress in such cases. The motions, however, was supported by Messrs. Spring Rice, II. Gurney, and Abercromby, with Lords Althorp and Russell, on the ground that there was more in the case than the mere misapplication of funds. They argued that the purpose to which the funds had been misapplied directly affected the privileges and constitution of the house of commons; that the house would degrade itself if it sanctioned the attorney-general’s going before any court, whether of law or of equity, to obtain the decision of that court on the propriety or power of the house to interfere in cases of this nature, and that the case was a fitting one to be investigated by a committee. The application of money for such purposes found an advocate in Mr. Peel, who asked, that if corporation funds should not be spent for any other than corporation purposes, what was to be said of that of London, which had recently voted £1000 to the Greeks? The real question before the house was, that supposing the corporation to have power to apply its funds to other than charitable purposes, had it a right to appropriate them to such a purpose as paying the legitimate expenses incurred in forwarding the election of a particular member of parliament? This was a question which merited deep consideration. Might a peer subscribe one, two, or five thousand pounds towards defraying such expenses?—might not a corporation do so too? He would not advise them to do it; but he was not prepared to say that in doing it they were acting illegally, or would be guilty of a breach of the privileges of the house of commons. He should suggest that a select committee be appointed simply to inquire into the payment, or engagements for payment, of any sum for electioneering purposes, made by the corporation of Northampton at the last election, which suggestion was adopted. Concerning the borough of Leicester, Mr. Sykes moved that a select committee should be appointed “to take into consideration the petition from the borough of Leicester, to examine witnesses, and to report to the house thereon.” This motion was opposed by Messrs. C. Wynn and Peel, as a manifest attempt to evade the provisions of the Grenville Act, which might forthwith be repealed if motions of this nature were sanctioned. The petitioners, it was said, had taken legal advice on the subject, and finding that they had no case, they allowed the time limited by that act to elapse, and now demanded the special interference of the house. They found this mode of procedure more convenient than the former, under which they would have had to find security for costs in the event of the petition turning out to be frivolous, and would have been obliged at least to maintain their own witnesses. It was inconvenient, unjust, and degrading to the character of the house, it was asserted, to descend into the politics of borough elections, and that applications like this ought to be resisted. On the other hand, Sir Francis Burdett argued that if the petition were rejected, it would be viewed as indicating a want of that constitutional jealousy which should induce them to open their doors widely, instead of shutting them abruptly to complaints of this nature. The house, he said, was imperatively called on to investigate the circumstances connected with the offence. On a division, however, the motion was lost by a majority of ninety-two to sixty-eight.

A severer fate menaced some of the Cornish boroughs. Two of them appeared so pre-eminent in dishonesty, that the most determined advocates of the old system could not ward off retributive justice. A petition against the return for Penryn had been presented, and although corrupt practices could not be traced to the sitting members, yet the committee reported that the most gross and shameful bribery had prevailed. Mr. Legh Keck, chairman of the committee, was compelled by a sense of duty to move the following resolutions:—“That it appears to this house that the most notorious bribery and corruption were practised at the last election of members to serve in parliament for the borough of Penryn, and that such practices were not new or casual in the borough, the attention of the house having been called to similar practices in the years 1807 and 1819. That the said bribery and corruption deserved the most serious consideration of parliament. That leave be given to bring in a bill for the more effectual preventing of bribery and corruption in that borough.” These resolutions were agreed to; the sitting members for Penryn only raising their voices against it, and a bill was ordered to be brought in in accordance with the third resolution. This bill having been read a second time, the house proceeded to examine further evidence in proof of the corruption. In that evidence there was much of mere belief, and much prevarication on the part of some of the witnesses; but the house came to the conclusion that a clear case of bribery and corruption had been established. The grand point, therefore, to consider was, the punishment to be inflicted, or the remedy to be applied. On that subject there was a diversity of opinions. Mr. Keck proposed the extension of the franchise to the hundreds, while Lord John Russell contended that the borough, like that of Grampound, should be disfranchised altogether. He moved as an amendment, “that the borough of Penryn shall be excluded hereafter from returning burgesses to serve in parliament.” The original motion was supported by the ministry, who contended that though enough had been proved to call for the interference of the house, yet there was not sufficient to induce it to proceed to total disfranchisement. Mr. Canning remarked, that he thought it clear that a verdict of “guilty” must be given; but he did not think such a degree of guilt was established as would warrant the extinction of that which in its blameless exercise was a valuable possession, and the taking it entirely away from those who had exercised it innocently because others had abused it. He protested, however, against its being supposed that, in such a case as Grampound, he should feel any difficulty in erecting a new representation in lieu of that which might be taken away; and in giving his vote for the original motion, he would give it with reference to this particular case, avoiding the general question, and the general principles on which it was to be considered. The amendment was supported by Lords Althorp and Milton; by Messrs. Ferguson, Hobhouse, and Brougham; and by Sir John Newport. Such a case, they argued, had been made out that it would be an injustice to the constitution and to the principles on which the house had acted towards other places if Penryn were not disfranchised, and the right transferred elsewhere. The transfer of its privileges, they said, to the adjoining hundreds, would merely bestow them on a few wealthy individuals. On a division the amendment was carried by a majority of one hundred and twenty-four against sixty-nine.

A petition had been presented against the return for East Retford, and the committee had reported that the sitting members were not duly elected; that the election was void, and that bribery had been general and notorious. Similar resolutions to those in the case of Penryn were adopted, therefore, in regard to this borough. The house resolved that no new writ should issue until the evidence should have been taken into consideration; and the result of that consideration was, that leave was given for a bill of disfranchisement. The session, however, closed before any effective proceedings were taken for the disfranchisement of either of these boroughs; but Manchester was generally looked to as a recipient of the forfeited privileges of Penryn, and Birmingham was held out as the place to which the franchise of East Retford would be transferred.

During this session Lord Althorp obtained the appointment of a committee to inquire into the mode of taking the poll at county elections; and Colonel Davies obtained a similar one to inquire into the mode of taking the polls at elections of cities and boroughs. The object of this inquiry was to get rid, if possible, of the enormous expense of electing, whether in county, city, or borough; for in many cases, as matters stood, it was only men of large fortunes who could venture to stand candidates. Lord Althorp likewise brought in and carried a bill for the better prevention of corrupt practices at elections, and for diminishing the expenses. His object was to prevent substantial bribery from being perpetrated under the mask of giving employment, and therefore to deprive all persons of the right to vote who should be employed by a candidate at the election. It was notorious, he said, that at elections different nominal offices were created, to be filled by voters who were classed as plumpers, and received double the pay of split votes. The provisions of the bill, however, were not to apply to any real and fair agent of a candidate, but to those who went under the spurious names of runners, flagmen, and musicians. On the suggestion of Mr. Spring Rice it was further determined to prohibit the distribution of riband and cockades. Both parts of the bill were opposed: the one as being unjust, and the other as frivolous; but the bill passed into a law. By its provision any person who, within six months before an election, or during an election, or within fourteen days after it, shall have been employed in the election as counsel, agent, attorney, poll-clerk, flagman, or in any other capacity, and shall have received in consideration of such employment any fee, place, or office, shall be incapable of voting at such elections; and that a penalty of £10 for each offence shall be inflicted upon every candidate, who, after the test of the writ, or if parliament be sitting, after the seat has become vacant, shall directly or indirectly give to any voter or inhabitant any cockade, riband, or any other mark of distinction. On the whole, therefore, a great step was taken this session towards the purification of elections; a branding mark, at least, was set upon shameless corruption.

THE GAME-LAWS.

During this session Lord Wharncliffe introduced a bill into the lords for altering the system of the game-laws. The provisions of this bill were threefold: first, it removed the absurd and contradictory qualifications of the old law, and substituted in their place the qualification of property, by permitting every proprietor to kill game on his own lands, whether great or small; secondly, it legalized the sale of game, as one great means of diminishing the temptations for poaching; and, thirdly, it mitigated the severity of the punishments provided by the existing law for certain offences against the game acts. This bill was allowed to be read a second time; but on the third reading it was lost by a majority of one. It had, however, scarcely been rejected when the Marquis of Salisbury introduced another, which proposed to empower all persons qualified by law to kill game to take out a licence, authorizing them to sell game to licensed dealers. This bill was likewise allowed to pass a second reading; but it was lost on a motion for the third reading by a majority of fifty-four to thirty-eight. One great alteration, however, was effected by a bill introduced by Lord Suffield, which abolished the practice of setting spring-guns and other engines of destruction for the preservation of game. This bill, which passed into a law, declared it to be a misdemeanour in any person to set a spring-gun, man-trap, or other engine calculated to kill, or inflict grievous injury, with the intent that it should destroy life, or occasion bodily harm to any trespasser or other person who might come into contact with it. An exception was made in favour of gins and traps for the destruction of vermin, and of guns placed in a dwelling-house between sunset and sunrise for the protection of that house. Scotland was excepted from the operation of the law; the six judges of the court of justiciary in that country having recently pronounced, in a case on which they had adjudicated of a man who had recently been killed by a spring-gun, that such killing, by the law of Scotland, is murder.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

Although out of office Mr. Peel still proceeded with his improvements of the criminal code. By his enlightened exertions five acts were passed, which consolidated into one body the whole law regarding offences against property, purified from an incredible quantity of ancient rubbish, and advantageously simplified in all its arrangements. The first of these five acts repealed about one hundred and thirty-seven different statutes, wholly, or in part, commencing with the charter _De Foresta_ of Henry III., and ending with the session of 1826. The second statute removed doctrines which had hitherto been useless lumber in the statute-book, or laid down general rules applicable to the whole criminal code. It abolished _in toto_ the benefit of clergy in cases of felony; appointed certain punishment for offences to which no special statute affixed any particular penalty; relieved discharged prisoners from severe official expenses; and purified the law from a load of obscure and unnecessary verbiage. The third act contained the law of offences against property in its new and simplified form; bringing the various species of crime into one view; assigning to each its plain description, with its punishment; and removing distinctions which had frequently given rise to subtile and embarrassing doubts. It abolished the distinction between grand and petty larceny; defined the true nature of burglary; and removed many subtilties regarding possession, and the conversion of possession in the law of embezzlement, as well as in the distinctions of larceny and fraud. It also mitigated the rigour of the penal law, while it recognised four classes of punishments, the offences being distinctly set forth to which each was applicable. The first of these punishments was death: the second, transportation for life, or any term not less than seven years, with the alternative of imprisonment for not longer than four years, with public whipping; the third was transportation for any period under fourteen years, or imprisonment for three years and whipping; and the fourth was transportation for seven years, with the alternative of imprisonment for two years and whipping. The fourth statute comprised those offences which consisted of maliciously injuring the property of another. This act reserved capital punishment for arson, for the demolition of buildings or machinery by rioters, for showing false lights to a vessel, &c.; but left other kinds of injury to be repaid by transportation or imprisonment. Altogether the number of capital offences was considerably diminished; and in many cases a summary mode of proceeding was introduced, which was so far a limitation of trial by jury. The last statute regulated the redress to be sought from the hundred by persons whose property had been injured by rioters, and laid down the mode for applying for such remuneration.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 2nd of July. The speech was delivered by commission, and chiefly referred to the assurances of friendship from foreign powers; to directions which had been given for a review of the financial state of the country, with a view to a diminution of expenditure; to the revival of employment in the manufacturing districts; and to the corn-law question. On this latter subject the speech remarked:—“His majesty trusts that, although your deliberations on the corn-laws have not led, during the present session, to a permanent settlement of that important question, the consideration of it will be resumed by you early in the ensuing session, and that such an arrangement of it may finally be adopted as shall satisfy the reasonable wishes, and reconcile the substantial interests of all classes of his majesty’s subjects.”

DEATH OF MR. CANNING.

The close of this session was soon followed by an event which again dismembered the government, and disappointed all those hopes which the genius and enlightened principles of Mr. Canning had raised in the nation; an event, also, which taught an impressive lesson on the vanity and uncertainty of ambition. Immediately after the close of parliament Mr. Canning issued orders to the heads of different departments, that they should transmit to him accurate accounts of the expenses connected with their several establishments, with a view to their reduction. He had no sooner done this than he was visited by an attack of illness. His attack seemed to yield to medical treatment; and he went down to the beautiful seat of the Duke of Devonshire, at Chiswick, to seek tranquillity and a purer air. The fatigues and cares of office, however, had worn down his constitution, while the desertion and bitter hostility of his ministerial colleagues—men whom he had loved—acted on a frame naturally irritable and enfeebled, and hastened his dissolution. His disease returned; inflammation commenced, and proceeded with a violence and rapidity which defied all art; and on the 8th of August he expired in the same room where his predecessor, Charles James Fox, had drawn his last breath. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, at the foot of Mr. Pitt’s tomb, and his funeral, though private, was attended by a large concourse of noblemen and gentlemen, to whom the deceased was endeared, either by the ties of relationship or personal friendship. The public character of Mr. Canning is clearly unfolded in the altered policy of our government, both foreign and domestic, during his connexion with the Liverpool administration. His ambition was lofty and imperious, but it was coupled with noble ends—the glory of his own country, and the advancement, through her greatness, of the surrounding nations. He was anxious that all should benefit by her commercial prosperity and the blessings of her constitution. Perhaps no minister was ever more thoroughly influenced by the free spirit of the British constitution than he was, at least in the latter part of his career. He began life, indeed, on Tory principles; but he gradually imbibed that spirit, until at length he threw off the trammels of that oligarchy, and acted as a true patriot. When he found that the principles which he professed in his early years began to threaten the safety of the constitution he abandoned them as far as expedient; and conciliating his opponents, he availed himself of their assistance to carry on the measures which he devised for the welfare of his country. Some of these measures, as previous pages unfold, were carried; others were to have been brought forward in the lapse of time, had not death cut short his useful career. It has been truly said, that in him England regretted the most accomplished orator that the age had produced; and that the liberal portion of Europe mourned over the loss of his moral influence as a calamity to the world at large. He will be remembered in England as one who nobly defended the honour, and asserted the dignity of the country among nations, and as having made himself prime minister of England by the mere force of talent.

ADMINISTRATION OF LORD GODERICH.

It might have been expected that, on the death of Mr. Canning, his cabinet, which was composed of heterogeneous materials, and kept together by his influence, would have been broken up. Few changes, however, took place; and their effect was to bring back some of Mr. Canning’s former friends into office. Lord Goderich became first lord of the treasury, and Mr. Huskisson succeeded to him in the colonial department. The Duke of Wellington re-accepted the command of the army, but without a seat in the cabinet. There was a difficulty in finding a chancellor of the exchequer; it was declined by Messrs. Tierney, Huskisson, and Sturges Bourne; but finally accepted by Mr. Hemes, who had been secretary of the treasury under Lord Liverpool’s administration. The nomination of Mr. Herries, who was brought up in the Vansittart school, was well nigh the cause of breaking up the cabinet. The Whigs objected to him on political grounds; and the Marquis of Lansdowne waited upon the king to tender his resignation. His chief objection, however, was, that he was said to have been a nominee of the king; and when it was explained that the recommendation came from Lord Goderich, and was accepted by his majesty, who was anxious to avoid the fatigue of new arrangements, his lordship consented to retain office. This new ministry, the third which the country had seen in the space of seven months, had within it, however, the seeds of its own dissolution; and, as will be seen, the year was scarcely out when it was dissolved.

REVIEW OF FOREIGN POLICY.