Chapter XXXVIII: {george IV. 1828—1829} (1)

Duke of Wellington’s Administration..... Meeting of
Parliament..... Discussions and Explanations concerning the
Dissolution of the Goderich Ministry, &c. Questions of
Finance..... Motion for a Grant to the Family of Mr.
Canning..... Financial Statement..... Repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts..... The Catholic Question...... Motion on
the State of the Law, &c. Bills connected with the
Election of Members of the House..... Corn-Law Question.....
Divisions in the Cabinet..... Prorogation of Parliament.....
Disturbances in Ireland..... Death of the Earl of
Liverpool..... Foreign Policy.

DUKE OF WELLINGTON’S ADMINISTRATION.

{A.D. 1828}

It soon became manifest that the cabinet with the loss of it great leader had lost all its preservative qualities. Lord Goderich was a man of unquestionable integrity; but he exhibited a lamentable deficiency in that energy, judgment, and firm resolution, which were absolutely necessary for the keeping together of the discordant materials of which his administration was composed. His incapacity was plainly manifested when he proposed to redeem a pledge given by Mr. Canning, to appoint a committee for the investigation and reform of the finances, in the ensuing parliament. Mr. Tierney, one of the most active members of the Whig cabinet, proposed Lord Althorp as chairman, to which Lord Goderich expressed no objection; merely observing that the appointment principally concerned the house of commons, and referring Mr. Tierney to Mr. Huskisson, its ministerial leader. Lord Althorp was by the consent of Mr. Huskisson appointed; but by some oversight or intention, the matter was not mentioned to Mr. Hemes, who, as chancellor of the exchequer was more immediately concerned in the investigation. It was only on the 28th of November that Mr. Hemes, calling at the colonial-office, accidentally saw a list of the committee and its chairman, drawn out by Mr. Tierney. On the subject being discussed, the chancellor of the exchequer was thought to have acquiesced in the appointment; but Mr. Hemes, in the course of the parliamentary explanations which followed, and which will be related in a subsequent article, denied this to have been the case: declaring at the same time that though he had unfeigned respect for the private character of Lord Althorp, he distinctly objected to his being appointed as chairman of the committee. It is quite clear that Mr. Hemes objected to the appointment; for within twenty-four hours after he saw the list he waited on Lord Goderich, and informed him, that, after considering Lord Althorp’s political views maturely, he must resign office if his appointment were not set aside. On the other hand the retention of Mr. Huskisson, who considered himself pledged to Lord Althorp, became involved in the question, and occasioned much perplexity to the premier. About the same time the news of the battle of Navarino arrived; and, wearied with his situation, on the 8th of January he went down to Windsor, laid his difficulties before the king, and resigned. The coalition ministry was no more. It perished, the victim of that want of confidence which is the natural result of new-born friendship, and of want of power and energy in its leader.

Thus abandoned by his ministers, the king sent for the Duke of Wellington, and commissioned him to reconstruct the cabinet. The new government was speedily constructed, and, with the exception of Lord Eldon, whom infirmity prevented from taking office, the Liverpool administration was reinstated. The Duke of Wellington relinquished the office of commander-in-chief to Lord Hill, and presided over the treasury; Mr. Peel succeeded to the home department; Lord Bathurst became president of the council; Lord Ellenborough was made keeper of the privy-seal; Viscount Melville and the Earl of Aberdeen were made president of the board of control and chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; Lord Lyndhurst was created chancellor; Mr. Huskisson and Earl Dudley became colonial and foreign secretaries; Lord Palmerston was made secretary at war; Mr. C. Grant became president of the board of trade; and Mr. Goulburn succeeded Mr. Hemes as chancellor of the exchequer. Mr. Hemes was made master of the mint and his acceptance of office under the new administration was considered by the Whigs as a proof that he had undertaken his former office from other motives than qualifications or choice. Mr. Huskisson’s union with the new ministry displeased the personal friends of Mr. Canning, who thought that he displayed no regard to the memory of his friend, in so soon taking office with those who had deserted him in the hour of need.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the 29th of January. It was again opened by commission; and the principal topic in the speech was an allusion to the late naval conflict. It remarked:—“Having been earnestly entreated by the Greeks to interpose his good offices, with a view to effect a reconciliation between them and the Porte, his majesty concerted measures in the first instance with the Emperor of Russia, and subsequently with his imperial majesty and the King of France. His majesty has given directions that there should be laid before you copies of a protocol signed at St. Petersburg by the plenipotentiaries of his majesty, and of his imperial majesty the Emperor of Russia, on the 4th of April, 1826, and of the treaty entered into between his majesty and the courts of the Tuilleries and of St Petersburg, on the 6th of July, 1827. In the course of the measures adopted with a view to carry into effect the object of the treaty a collision wholly unexpected by his majesty took place in the port of Navarino between the fleets of the contracting powers. Notwithstanding the valour displayed by the combined fleet, his majesty deeply laments that this conflict should have occurred with the naval force of our ancient ally; but he still entertains a confident hope that this untoward event will not be followed by further hostilities, and will not impede that amicable adjustment of the existing differences between the Porte and the Greeks to which it is so manifestly their common interests to accede.” This is the first time in the British annals that a victory is characterized as an “untoward event.” But the men now in power hated Greece and her cause, and were so blinded by admiration of despotic principles, as not to perceive thé advantages which might accrue to Russia in her future projects, from the destruction of the Ottoman navy, and from the lack of confidence which the sultan would now have in his western allies. In both houses the language of the king’s speech respecting the victory of Navarino was loudly denounced by opposition, it being supposed to indicate that the Duke of Wellington’s cabinet abandoned the line of Mr. Canning’s policy. In the lords the Duke of Richmond especially fixed a quarrel on the phrase “ancient ally:” contending that the sultan could not be termed in any correct sense of the word an ally of this country at all, and much less an “ancient ally.” He disapproved still more of the epithet “untoward,” as applied in the speech to the battle of Navarino. If the term was meant, he said, to cast any blame on the gallant officer who commanded the fleet at Navarino, he would protest against the baseness and ignominy of such an insinuation in the most solemn manner; or if it was to be understood that it referred to that which happened by accident, and which stood across the object we had in view, he entered his protest against it. However much he might lament the effusion of blood which had taken place at Navarino; however much he might lament that we had not yet accomplished the pacification of the two countries, and effected the liberation of Greece, still, if by that word it was meant to say, that the battle of Navarino was an obstacle to the independence of Greece, he could not agree in such views. To him it appeared a great step towards the pacification of Eunrae, and he considered it of more use than a contrary policy could have been in promoting that great and desirable object. In explaining, the Duke of Wellington maintained that the epithets excepted against were fairly and truly applicable. The Ottoman empire, he said, had long been an ally of this country, and the Ottoman power was an essential part of the balance of power in Europe. Its preservation had been for many years an object not only to this country, but to the whole of Europe, while the revolutions and changes of possessions which had taken place had increased the importance of its preservation as an independent state, capable of preserving itself. As to the term “untoward,” the sense in which it was used referred to the stipulations of the alliance, that its operation was not to lead to hostilities and that the contracting powers were to take no part in hostilities. When, therefore, the operations under the treaty did lead to hostilities it was certainly an “untoward event.” “I must say,” continued his grace, “that the gallant admiral was placed in a very delicate situation; and that he has done his duty to his king and his country. He was in command of a squadron of ships, acting in conjunction with admirals of other nations; and he so conducted himself as to acquire their confidence, and to induce them to lead them to victory. Such being the case I should feel myself unworthy of the high situation I hold in his majesty’s councils, if I were capable of uttering a single word against the gallant admiral. Meaning as I did, that the government should carry the treaty into execution, it would be blamable in me to insinuate a censure against a man who was charged with the execution of difficult orders under a treaty.” Similar exceptions were taken in the commons against the speech; but the usual addresses to the throne were carried in both houses without a division.

DISCUSSIONS AND EXPLANATIONS CONCERNING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE GODERICH MINISTRY, ETC.

As the dissolution of the late ministry had been unexpected, and little had been said of the causes which produced it, and as the conduct of those members who had passed into the new government appeared suspicious, some explanation of these matters was looked for in both houses of parliament. The disclosures began by Messrs. Hemes, Huskisson, and others who had accepted office under the new government. They commenced with Lord Goderich, on whom it was especially incumbent to explain the civil dissensions which had broken in pieces a cabinet of his own framing, and had induced him to throw up the government in a manner neither understood by his older friends or more recent allies. His statement in reply attributed the dissolution of the ministry to an irreconcilable difference between Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Herries, regarding the proposed chairman of the finance committee; and since that difference had caused the resignation of the minister, it implied an admission that his cabinet was so constructed that the removal of either of these gentlemen naturally dissolved it. It remained for Messrs. Huskisson and Herries to state the grounds, therefore, of an obstinacy which had been so fatal to the cabinet; but both remained silent, until Lord Normandy called directly upon them to explain their conduct in the matter. Mr. Huskisson, in his version of the events which had led to the dissolution of the ministry, agreed in general with the statement made by Lord Goderich, simply supplying some deficiencies which his lordship had been unable to fill up. On the contrary, Mr. Herries averred broadly that the difference concerning the appointment of Lord Althorp as chairman of the committee was not the cause of the dissolution of Lord Goderich’s administration. He remarked:—“There is no truth whatever in the allegation that that difference caused the dissolution of the late cabinet. In all the rumours which have been propagated about design, and artifice, and stratagem, there is not one word of truth. I deny them all most unequivocally. They are false and unfounded in every particular, and have not even the slightest shadow of a foundation.” Mr. Tierney and Lord Althorp followed; but they threw no new light on the subject; and all parties ended where they had begun: the public had to believe which of the statements made they chose, according to this or that man’s political bias. In a discussion which followed, the attention of the house was directed to the character of the new government, and the conduct of those members of the former government who had joined it. Mr. T. Duncombe remarked, that the house had still to learn how the difference between Messrs. Huskisson and Herries had been made up, and how these members continued to sit in the same cabinet. The colonial secretary, he said, had still to explain “how their pulses, which formerly were so irregular, could beat so soon in unison; by what means the _quietus_ had been produced, and the direful wrath appeased.” He was inclined to impute all that had happened to a secret and powerful agency which had not yet been unmasked, and which was exercised, according to the statement of the honourable member, by a Jew stock-broker, and a Christian physician. He had, indeed, “been credibly informed that there is a mysterious personage behind the scene, who concerts, regulates, and influences every arrangement.” He continued, “There is, deny it who can? a secret influence behind the throne, whose form is never seen, who name is never breathed who has access to all the secrets of the state, and who manages all the sudden springs of ministerial arrangement,

‘At whose soft nod the streams of honour flow,
Whose smiles all place and patronage bestow.’

“Closely connected with this invisible, this incorporeal person, stands a more solid and substantial form, a new and formidable power, till these days unknown in Europe. Master of unbounded wealth, he boasts that he is the arbiter of peace and war, and that the credit of nations depends upon his nod. His correspondents are innumerable; his couriers outrun those of sovereign princes and absolute sovereigns; ministers of state are in his pay. Paramount to the cabinets of continental Europe, he aspires to the domination of our own. Even the great Don Miguel himself, of whom we have lately heard and seen so much, was obliged to have recourse to the purse of this individual, before he could take possession of his throne. Sir, that such secret influences do exist is a matter of notoriety: they are known to have been but too busy in the underplot of the revolution. I believe their object to be as impure as the means by which their power has been acquired; and I denounce them and their agents as unknown to the British constitution, and derogatory to the honour of the crown.” Mr. Buncombe’s denunciation of the secret influence behind the throne was followed by the explanations of Messrs. Stanley and Peel, and Lords Morpeth, Milton, and Palmerston, as to their reasons for joining or not joining the present government. But after the house, as Mr. Brougham remarked, had heard a great deal, it was still left nearly as much in the dark as ever, regarding the substantial facts of the case which it was desirable should be known. The whole transaction, he said was another illustration of Odenstien’s remark to his son;—“You see with how little wisdom the world can be governed.” It appeared that two members of the cabinet had been walking about in uncertainty whether they belonged to the government or not; and the head of that government was chiefly distinguished for carrying the resignations of two of his colleagues in his pocket, and for an alarm, when they should leave him, as to what he should do to provide himself with new ones. As for the quarrel of the two resigning members, it was endless, hopeless. Walls of brass were raised to divide the contending parties for ever: to communicate with each other was impossible. Communications were only to be held with a third person, and that third person was not to repeat what either party communicated to him. Every possible course had been resorted to to avoid an explanation, although it would have put an end to the difficulty altogether, is to the explanations of Mr. Herries, said Mr. Brougham, they give me no satisfaction. That gentleman’s shining of his ground, first assenting or not objecting to the appointment of Lord Althorp, afterwards protesting against it, and then attributing the dissolution of the ministry to a preconcerted plan on the part of others—all this left doubts remaining in the public mind. There was still something untold which would have explained the matter at once. The most important thing spoken in the debate, he said, was the assertion of Mr. Huskisson, that he never intended to say that he had got a guarantee for office in the new administration before the old one was dissolved. No man had ever meant, or supposed that he had stipulated for and obtained a guarantee, in the legal sense of the words, set down in a formal writing, and on a proper stamp. But, he asked, if a man spoke to an audience of having had conversations, explanations, and understandings, would they not apply those conversations, explanations, and understandings to that subject just as much as if it were written? Would it not be said that explanation was the result, of that conversation; and that the result of that explanation, in the case before the house, was the acceptation of office by the right honourable gentleman? In alluding to the unusual circumstance of a military man being at the head of the government, Mr. Brougham used very emphatic language. He remarked:—“No man values more highly than I do the services and genius of the noble duke as a soldier; but I do not like to see him at the head of the financial department of this country, with the full confidence of his sovereign, enjoying all the patronage of the church, the army, and the state; while he is also entrusted with the delicate function of conveying constant and confidential advice to his royal master. This state of things strikes me as being very unconstitutional. I am, indeed, told that the noble duke is a person of very great vigour in council, and that his talents are not confined to the art of war. It may be so. But that does not remove my objections to his possession of so immense a mass of civil and military patronage. It is said that the noble duke is incapable of speaking in public as a first minister or the crown ought to speak. Now I consider that there is no validity in that objection; for I happened to be present when the noble duke last year had the modesty and candour to declare, in another place, his unfitness for the situation of first minister; and I really thought I had never heard a better speech in my life, or observed less want of capacity in any one who might be called on to take part in a debate. This therefore is not a reason with me for objecting to the appointment. My objection rests on the unconstitutional grounds which I have before stated, and on the experience of the noble duke being wholly military. Let it not, however, be supposed that I am inclined to exaggerate. I have no fear of slavery being introduced into this country by the power of the sword. It would demand a stronger man even than the Duke of Wellington to effect that object. The noble duke might take the army and the navy, the mitre and the great seal—I will make him a present of them all; let him come on with his whole force, sword in hand, against the constitution, the people will not only beat him by their energies, but laugh at his efforts. There have, indeed, been periods when the country heard with dismay that the soldier was abroad; but such is not the case now. Let the soldier be never so much abroad in the present age, he can do nothing. Another person, less important, nay, even insignificant in the eyes or some persons, has produced this state of things. ‘The schoolmaster is abroad,’ and I trust more to the schoolmaster, armed with his primer, for upholding the liberties of this country than I fear lest the soldier, in full military array, should destroy them.” Mr. Brougham had no occasion to fear the effects of a military premier, even though the schoolmaster had not been abroad; for no prime minister that ever presided over the councils of the British nation has ever shown himself to be more alive to the interests of the country, and the preservation of its constitutional rights, than the Duke of Wellington.

QUESTIONS OF FINANCE.

While these explanations were proceeding, that committee of finance which had dissolved the late administration, was appointed. The motion was made by Mr. Peel, now the acknowledged leader of the house of commons. He prefaced his motion, with an able and comprehensive statement. By his details, it appeared that a reduction of £48,608,000 had taken place in the funded and unfunded debt since the year 1815, while the actual sum of unredeemed debt amounted about £777,476,000. This being the total encumbrance, Mr. Peel next looked at the revenue and expenditure; and after detailing the various items, he stated the income of last year at £49,581,000, and the expenditure at £49,487,000, thus leaving an excess of income equal to £94,000,000. The estimates of the present year, he said, were not completed; but, without binding himself down to extreme accuracy they would be less than those of the present year by £1,168,260. After having made this general statement Mr. Peel declared that he and his colleagues would listen to any suggestion of the committee, for the appointment of which he was about to move. He took that opportunity, he said, of pressing one subject particularly on its notice, namely, the simplification of the public accounts, in imitation of France and America. The motion passed without opposition, except from Mr. Hume, who contended, that if any good was to be done, there should be ten or eleven finance committees; but his plan received no countenance, except from Mr. Brougham; and a single committee of twenty-three members was appointed. The labours of this committee were multifarious and important. One of the first fruits of its appointment was the discovery that the public was regularly losing large sums of money by the system on which the government annuities had been granted. Mr. Hemes submitted a statement to the committee concerning the finances, which Lord Althorp described as, “able, clear, and satisfactory;” and it appeared from that exposition that these annuities had been sold at a considerable loss. The evidence of this was found in certain calculations made by Mr. Finlayson, who was said to have communicated the fact to Lord Bexley in 1819, and subsequently to Lord Goderich. His calculations stated the rate of loss to be £8,000 a month, and to arise from a false calculation of the duration of life in the tables given by Dr. Price. Either these tables were originally inaccurate, or human life, in consequence of increased comforts, conveniences, and scientific aid, was extended to a longer period. The truth of this statement soon appeared to the committee; but nothing could be done to alter those annuities which had been sold. On the recommendation of the committee, however, a bill was brought in and speedily passed, to suspend the operation of the act under which they had been granted, until a more correct system could be arranged. During the session the committee reported on various matters which had been brought under their consideration, but not early enough to allow their recommendations to be carried into effect. In a report on the state of the ordnance department, the abolition of the office of its lieutenant-general was recommended; but this proposition was opposed by the ministry, and a motion to give it effect was lost by a large majority.

MOTION FOR A GRANT TO THE FAMILY OF MR. CANNING.

When Mr. Canning died he was a poor man. He had begun the world without fortune; he had spent his life in the public service; and the emoluments of the offices which he had held had scarcely sufficed to cover the expenses of his station. As, therefore, he held no sinecures, his sudden death had left his family without a due provision. On these grounds the chancellor of the exchequer proposed to grant a pension of £3,000 a year to his second son, as a mode of providing for the family less onerous than voting a large sum for the payment of debts. This proposition was vehemently opposed by Lord Althorp, Sir M. Ridley, Messrs. Hume, Bankes, D. W. Harvey, P. Thompson, and others, partly on the score of economy, and partly on the ground of its not having been deserved. On the contrary, ministers placed the question on the broad ground, that Mr. Canning had devoted a long life, and talents of the first order, to the service of his country; and in following that service, had not merely lost the means of improving, but had deteriorated his private fortune. What had he not surrendered, it was asked, when he gave up the government of India to fill the unprofitable office of foreign secretary? Mr. Huskisson remarked:—“I regret to be obliged to make reference on such an occasion to information derived from the privacy of confidential intercourse; but I can state, upon my own personal credit, that whatever were the feeling of others, who were justly near and dear to Mr. Canning, it had for years been his warm and anxious wish to be placed in some public situation, however it might sacrifice or compromise the fair and legitimate scope of his ambition, which, while it enabled him to perform adequate public services, would enable him also to place upon a better footing his wife’s private fortune, which he had lessened, and the inheritance of his children, which he had impaired. I will not go so far as to say, that this was a prospect fixed upon Mr. Canning’s mind, or an object that he was bent upon pursuing, for it is difficult to trace the springs of so susceptible a temperament; but under the circumstances it was quite natural, considering his means and his family, that while he honourably sought a situation to render service to his country, he should not be unmindful of the means of repairing the family fortune, which he had diminished while in the service of his country.” A further objection was raised to the grant, founded on disapprobation of Mr. Canning’s policy, or of that policy with which he had been officially connected; but to this it was answered, that the proposition touched no political principle, and did not imply the abandonment of any political dogma. If the motion, it was argued, went to vote a monument to commemorate his services, members who thought that he had not performed any services to be commemorated, would do right to appose it; but when the motion went only to reward his family, they had merely to consider the fact, whether he had devoted his talents to the public service to the detriment of his private interests. On a division the grant was confirmed by a large majority. Both in the house indeed, and throughout the country, it was felt that this grant was only an act of justice, as Mr. Canning had spent not only his life, but his fortune, in the public service. On this subject it has been well remarked:—“It should be known, in justice to those who held the higher offices under the crown, that their salaries fall short of the expenses to which they are subjected, by the manners of the country and a mischievous convention. This gorgeous scale of living has the double effect of giving an example and impulse to extravagance through every department of the public service; and of securing, perhaps by design, to private wealth, a monopoly of administration. A man vigilantly prudent might perhaps have lived within his income in Mr. Canning’s situation, and it is known that he had no prodigal or expensive tastes; but it is also known that he had that utter carelessness of money through which fortune is not less effectually dissipated.”

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

The budget was opened by the chancellor of the exchequer on the 11th of July; and it was opened with a clearness and simplicity that disarmed even the opposition of Mr. Hume, disposed as he was at all times to cavil about figures. The total ordinary net revenue of the year 1827 was £49,581,576; but to this were added £4,245,000 received from the Bank on account of the dead-weight, and the sum of £660,081 under the head of extraordinary and miscellaneous, making a total revenue of £54,486.657. The chancellor of the exchequer said, that the total ordinary revenue for the year 1828 might be considered as amounting ta £50,381,530, to which must be added £3,082,500, to be received from the trustees of military and naval pensions, together with miscellaneous payments of £438,000, making a grand total of £53,902,030. The expenditure he calculated as £50,104,522, which, being deducted from the revenue, left a surplus of £3,797,508 From this, however, was to be taken the advances to public works, £708,000, so that the clear surplus was only £3,088,708 instead of £5,000,000 to be applied as a sinking-fund. It was considered impossible in the present circumstances of the country, to supply this deficiency of the sinking-fund by additional taxation; so that it was agreed to limit the said fund to the amount of such a balance as might remain after the expenses of the year were liquidated. It was stated by the chancellor of the exchequer that, in the course of the last eleven years, the amount of debt redeemed was £29,000,000. It must be acknowledged, however, that the existing system of incurring debt with one hand, and redeeming it with the other, was a delusion.

REPEAL OF THE TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.

The grand question of this session was the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts: acts which excluded dissenters from offices of trust and power, and shut the doors of all corporations against them, unless they consented to take the sacrament according to the ritual of the church of England. Lord John Russell introduced this subject on the 26th of February, by moving “That this house will resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to consider of so much of the acts of the 13th and 25th of Charles II., as require persons, before they are admitted into any office or place in corporations, or having accepted any office, civil or military, or any place of trust under the crown, to receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper according to the rites of the church of England.” In introducing this motion Lord John Russell took a review of the history of the statutes in question, and he argued that they had been originally enacted for reasons which no longer existed. He maintained the justice and expediency of the motion on the ground that while these tests were an infliction on the dissenters, they afforded no protection to the church of England; but on the contrary, exposed her to dangers to which she would not be otherwise obnoxious. Without serving any good purpose, he said, they made the dissenters irritated enemies, instead of converting them into companions or friends. Another objection, he said, rose from the nature of the test, which made it a shameless abuse of the most solemn of all religious rites. The sacrament of the Lord’s supper was held by the church to be most sacred; and yet it was prostituted bylaw to be a mere qualification for office. History stated, he remarked, that it was the custom for persons to be waiting in taverns and houses near the church, and when service was over an appointed person called out, “Those who want to be qualified will please to step up this way,” and then persons took the communion solely for the purpose of receiving office. Such, said his lordship, were the consequences of mixing politics with religion. Political dissensions were aggravated by the venom of theological disputes, and religion profaned by the vices of ambition; making it both hateful to man and offensive to God. The only answers, continued his lordship, which could be made to these objections, were that the dissenters, in consequence of the Indemnity Act, suffered no real hardship, and that the law in its present state was necessary to the security of the church. But neither of these positions was true. The practical grievance suffered by the dissenters was much heavier than the legal grievances appearing on the face of the statutes: even the indemnity act was passed on the ground that the omission to qualify had proceeded from ignorance, absence, or unavoidable accident, and thus refused all relief to those in whom the omission flowed from conscientious scruples. The fact was, that many dissenters refused to take office on such degrading terms; they refused to attain by a fraud upon the statute, honours and emoluments which the law declared they should not attain in any other way. In conclusion his lordship remarked;—“I have proved that these acts violate the sacred rights of conscience, and are of the nature of religious persecution; I have shown that so far from not having inflicted any hardship on the body upon whom they operate, they are fraught with great mischief, irritation, and injustice; and I have shown that they are totally at variance with our own policy in Scotland and Ireland, as well as with the enlightened legislation of all the Christian countries of Europe. If I am asked what advantage the country is to derive from the abrogation of such laws, I answer, that the obvious tendency of the measure, independently of its justice, will be to render the dissenters better affected to the government; to inspire them with dispositions to bear the heavy burdens imposed on them by the necessities of the state with cheerfulness, or at least, with resignation; and above all, it will be more consonant to the tone and spirit of the age than the existence of those angry, yet inefficient and impracticable laws, which are a disgrace to the statute-book.” This motion was seconded by Mr. J. Smith, and ably supported by Lords Milton, Althorp, and Nugent, and by Messrs. Brougham, Ferguson, and Palmer. One of its most powerful advocates was Mr. Ferguson one of the members for Scotland, who desired the house to look at the Test and Corporation Acts, as they affected not merely a minority in England, but even the established religion of a constituent part of the empire. Scotland had a legal national religion equally with England; for at the union it was provided by the parliament of England that no alteration should be made in the principles, doctrine, or discipline, of the church of England, and the Scotch parliament, true to their own particular doctrines, immediately issued orders to their commissioners, that any clause should be null and void which militated in any way against the principles, doctrines, or discipline of the Protestant Presbyterian religion. The religion of Scotland was, therefore, a state religion as well as that of England, yet its members were affected by these penal laws, and prevented from serving their king, but at the risk of incurring these penalties, or renouncing their religion. Why, he asked, this proscription of a whole nation, upon the notion that this mode of exclusion was the best way of defending the church and state as by law established? Why deny a community of privileges to those who confer equal services, and encounter equal danger? On what occasion had the people of Scotland not contributed their full share in support of Great Britain? Were they no longer wanted? Hid the church of England desire to be left to defend the empire exclusively? If so, let the dissenters be told to withdraw, and quit a defence which they could only remain to make under exposure to ignominy. Take the battle of Waterloo, he continued, which had crowned the renown of the most illustrious leader of their times. What would have been the fate of that battle, and that leader, if the army which had conquered, had been filled only by the sons of the church of England? Take from the field the Scottish regiments; take away too the aid of those sons of Ireland, the proscribed Catholics: what then would have been the chance of their arms, divested of the Scottish and Irish soldiers, who filled their ranks and served their navy in every quarter of the globe! And if they had the assistance of such men, when the hour of peril came upon them, they ought not to deny their confidence in a time of tranquillity and peace. Ministers opposed the motion, the opposition being conducted by Messrs. Huskisson and Peel. Their chief defence was that the acts in question led to no particular hardship; and they sought evidence of this in the Indemnity Acts, and in the long silence of the dissenters themselves, from whom it was to have been expected that the constant infliction of a permanent grievance would have drawn forth incessant complaints. Mr. Huskisson said, that he doubted whether the present motion was calculated to remove any grievance. The grievances, indeed, complained of were of an imaginary character: he had yet to learn what obstacles existed against the honourable ambition of the dissenters. They had, he said, their full share of the civil power of the country, and were qualified to fill the first offices in the army and navy. Forty years had elapsed since this subject was discussed, and that period had been marked by many eager discussions on another great question involving the principles of religious liberty: could it be credited that the petitioners before the house, many of whom possessed acute intellects and intelligent minds, enjoyed the highest consideration in the country, if they knew there was anything in the state of the law to impede the fair, useful, and honourable exercise of their talents, would not have long since, firmly and unanimously, called upon the house to remove the grievance. The fact could not be so, for they had preserved total silence for the long period of forty years. Mr. Peel said that the question was attended with great difficulty. He was not prepared to say that it was essentially interwoven with the interest of the church of England; he did not think, indeed, that the two were so connected, that the church of England must fall, if the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed. He thought, however, with Mr. Huskisson, that the Protestant dissenters did not labour under such grievances as had been represented, and that they did not look at the Test and Corporation Acts, together with the Indemnity Act as honourable gentlemen had described. It had been said, he remarked, that we had shed the blood of the Scotch regiments in the Peninsula and at Waterloo. “What office of naval or military command had been closed against their officers? It was also said that the Test Acts shut them out from the higher offices of government. For an answer, look at the ministry: of the fourteen members of the cabinet, three, namely, Lords Aberdeen and Melville, and the president of the board of trade, were Scotsmen and good Presbyterians, whom these acts nevertheless had not succeeded in shutting out. The fact was,” he continued, “the existing law gave merely a nominal predominance to the established church; and he heartily wished, therefore, that this question had been allowed to remain quiescent, especially as it was practically offensive to no one.” In answer to the views taken by ministers, on the subject, Mr. Brougham maintained that the acts were daily and positively felt to be a most decided grievance. AVas it no grievance, he asked, to bear the mark of the chain remaining, after the fetter had been knocked away? Was it no grievance for a dissenter, wherever he went, to look like, and to be treated like a different being? It was said that temporal interests were not concerned: this he denied. A dissenter could not stand for a corporation. It had been stated that the late lord mayor of London was a dissenter, and that he had taken the sacrament: that statement was in favour of the argument. With respect to Scotland he knew that not one Presbyterian in a thousand would take the sacrament, would not even go to a place of worship where there was an organ, would consider it idolatry to kneel at an altar; if they conscientiously thought so, was it to be wondered at that they evinced a repugnance at what they considered a mixture of idolatry with Christian worship? If in the recent contest at Vintry ward, one of the candidates had differed from the other as to trans-substantiation or anything of that sort, there would be an end to this legal controversy: the court of king’s bench would never have heard of it, and the churchman would have been elected. Was not this a grievance? The knowledge of this act operated so, that, though the dissenter might walk on in his course, when not opposed, yet even if he aspired to a corporation, and no individual opposed him; if he was unanimously elected, and actually filled the place, a single individual might upset his election, he must retire. The consequence was that the dissenter would not seek such places: he retired to his library, to retirement, to private pursuits, with what feelings he might towards the government and the constitution. He was condemned to privacy, because he was of a different religion from the state, and because he would not sacrifice his religion for his place. Lord Palmerston said that he thought it would be an act of injustice to the Catholics to repeal this minor grievance while they suffered under much severer enactments. Sir T. Acland conceived that a middle course would afford relief, while the theoretical principal of the law would remain untouched. But it was found useless to strive against the spirit of the age. After an abortive project of Sir T. Ackland for suspending instead of repealing the acts in question, as well as a proposition made by Mr. Peel to take more time for consideration, Lord John Russell’s motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and thirty-seven, against one hundred and ninety-three.

Government had now one of two courses to adopt; either to resign their opinions or their places. They chose the former alternative; for when the motion for the house going into a committee was brought forward, Mr. Peel said he could not think of pressing his sentiments against those of the majority. Government itself, indeed, now took up the measure, adding by way of security to the established church a form of declaration, which all who accepted office were to take, that they would not exert any power or influence which they might possess by virtue of that office to the injury or subversion of the Protestant church as by law established, or to disturb it in the possession of those rights and privileges to which it is by law entitled. This declaration was described by those who supported simple repeal as both useless and unnecessary; but they recommended that the suggestion should be adopted rather than the bill should not pass. With this amendment it was carried, and it was introduced into the house of peers by Lord Holland. There was no ministerial deposition encountered here, and being in a manner a bill of the government it was generally supported by the spiritual peers. The bishop of Chester said:—“I wish the bill to pass, if for no other reason, yet for this—because the present laws do not answer their purpose. If the declaration now proposed be taken by a conscientious dissenter, it will prevent him from endeavouring, at least from indirectly endeavouring, to injure the establishment; and that is more than the sacramental test, if taken, could effect: if it be taken by a person who does not conscientiously intend to observe it, that person would not be kept out of office by any test whatever.” Lord Eldon, however, gave the bill his most decided opposition. He had heard much, he said, of “the march of mind,” but he never expected to see it thus march into the house with the Duke of Wellington and the bishops at its head. Of the declaration, he said, that instead of making the taker of office describe himself as belonging to some sort of religion, whether a Unitarian, a Catholic, or a Free-thinker, it did not require him to say, he had only to answer, that he was of the Christian faith; neither did it call on him to observe the declaration by such phrases as “I am a Christian,” or as, “I stand in the presence of my God.” The confidence to be reposed in the declaration did not rest upon the faith of a Christian, or any other faith whatever. Then again, he said, the declaration is to be extended to all offices of trust and emolument under the crown, and the bill left it entirely to the king to say in such cases, whether his majesty would, or would not require such a declaration: he could not but object to the provisions of a bill, the object of which was to take away the sacramental test merely on the ground of expediency, and to substitute in its place a declaration which, in some instances, might or might not be taken, according to the will of the sovereign. The form of declaration was also strongly objected to in the committee; and several amendments were carried to meet the views of the objectors, though not narrowing the principles of the bill; and it finally passed by a large majority. The amendments made simply consisted in this, that the man assuming a public office in a Christian community should declare that he was a Christian, or, at least, that he was not an infidel. The commons agreed to all that were made, although some members did not approve of them.

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

{GEORGE IV. 1828—1829}

During the discussion on the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, frequent allusion had been made to Catholic emancipation. The opponents of that repeal found an additional argument against it, in the supposition that it was but the first step in a course which was to terminate in Catholic emancipation. On the other hand, those who supported the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts denied that it had any such tendency. The Duke of Wellington remarked, in order to show that he might vote for the measure then before the house, and yet be a determined enemy of the Papists, that there was no person in the house of peers whose feelings and sentiments, after long consideration, were more decided than his with regard to the subject of the Roman Catholic claims; and that until he saw a great change in that question, he certainly should oppose them. Notwithstanding, the repeal of the Test Acts was immediately followed by a motion for removing the Catholic disabilities. On the 8th of May Sir Francis Burdett moved, “That the house do now resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the laws affecting his majesty’s subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his majesty’s subjects.” The debate lasted two nights; but as the speeches were merely repetitions of former arguments, it would be tedious and useless to give even a sketch, of them. The principal speakers in favour of the motion were Messrs. Brougham, Fitzgerald, North, Grant, and Huskisson, and Sirs J. Newport and J. Mackintosh. It was opposed by the attorney-general, Sir R. Inglis, and Messrs. Moore, Foster, Bankes, and Peel. On a division the motion for a committee was carried by a majority of six; and in the committee this resolution was agreed to:—“That it is expedient to consider the state of the laws affecting his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects, with the view of effecting such a final adjustment of them as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, the stability of the Protestant establishment, and the general satisfaction and concord of all classes.” Here, however, the commons stopped. Instead of forming resolutions in detail, it was determined to seek a conference with the lords, in order to ascertain whether their sentiments on the subject had changed. This proposal was agreed to by the peers; and a conference was held on the 19th of May, when the resolution of the commons, after being read in the upper house, was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 9th of June. The debate lasted two days; but the proposition of the Marquis of Lansdowne, “that their lordships should concur in that resolution,” was lost by a majority of one hundred and eighty-one against one hundred and thirty-seven. In this debate, however, the Duke of Wellington’s speech was marked by a conciliatory tone; and the friends of emancipation augured from this that their wishes on a future day would meet-with a less obstinate and uncompromising opposition.

MOTION ON THE STATE OF THE LAW.

Early in this session Mr. Brougham directed the attention of the commons to the state of the common law courts, and the common law itself, in a speech which occupied six hours in delivery, and was remarkable for its vast variety of detail. He moved “that an humble address be presented to his majesty, respectfully requesting that it may be his majesty’s pleasure to cause a commission to issue, to inquire into the abuses which have been introduced in the course of time into the administration of the law of these realms, and of the courts of common law; and to report on what remedies it may seem fit and expedient to adopt for their removal.” It was generally agreed that there was no subject more worthy of attention than the improvement of the law; but at the same time it was obvious that the unbounded nature of the inquiry proposed by Mr. Brougham would prevent it from producing any practical effects. Mr. Brougham’s motion therefore was lost: but in the course of the session two commissions were issued, one to inquire into the state of the common law, and the other to take into consideration the state of the law of real property.

BILLS CONNECTED WITH ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE.

In the course of this session bills were introduced into parliament to disfranchise the corrupt boroughs of Penryn and East Retford. Penryn first engaged the attention of the commons. A bill transferring its elective privileges to Manchester was carried and sent up to the lords; but the lords threw it out, as not being supported by evidence of corruption sufficient to warrant disfranchisement. A bill was also brought into the house to transfer the franchise of East Retford to Birmingham; but as at the time it was introduced there was a certainty that the Penryn bill would be rejected by the peers, the commons agreed that the measure should stand over till the next session, on the understanding that no new writ should be issued for East Retford. Other bills connected with elections of members of the house were brought into the commons; but they either did not pass that house, or were rejected by the lords, except one, which regulated the manner of taking the poll at city and borough elections, and which passed into a law. The chief feature of this latter bill was, that it cut down the duration of the poll from fifteen to six days.

CORN-LAW QUESTION.