Chapter XLII: {william IV. 1832–1833} (2)

During these proceedings in parliament great agitation prevailed throughout the country. The political unions convened large assemblies in the open air, and violent resolutions were passed, which threatened a dissolution of society. Addresses were voted to the king, praying him to create as many peers as might be necessary, while others were sent to the commons, praying them to stop the supplies. One meeting, which styled itself “a meeting of the inhabitants of Westminster,” assured the king, that, unless their advice was complied with, “tumult, anarchy, and confusion would overspread the land, and would cease only with the extinction of the privileged orders,” The national political union resolved to present a petition, praying that, till the bill passed, no supplies should be allowed to go into the hands of the lords of the treasury, but should be paid over to commissioners named by the house of commons; this course was specifically recommended to them, on the ground that it was taken from “that admirable resolution adopted by the house of commons in 1642.” The national union also resolved “that the betrayal of the people’s cause was not attributable to Lord Grey, or his administration; but to the base and foul treachery of others; that meetings be recommended in every comity, town, and parish throughout the kingdom; which, by inducing compliance with the unanimous wishes of the people, may prevent the mischief that would otherwise result from the general indignation; that a petition be presented to the house of commons, praying the appointment of commissioners to receive the supplies; and that, until the bill pass, they be not managed by the lords of the treasury.” The common-council met at Guildhall, and passed a number of resolutions, expressing their mortification and disappointment at the distressing communication made by ministers, that his majesty had refused them the means of carrying the reform Dill through the house of lords; declaring that the advisers of such a refusal had put to hazard the stability of the throne and tranquillity of the country; and petitioning the commons to withhold supplies till the reform bill was carried. Tire livery of the city also met, and passed a similar set of resolutions; adding, that “they viewed with distrust and abhorrence attempts, at once interested and hypocritical, to delude and mislead the people by pretended plans of reform, promised or proposed by the insidious enemies of all reform.” The speeches at this meeting dared any administration to assume the reins of government, without undertaking to carry the whole bill. The Duke of Wellington was particularly censured by the speakers: nor did his majesty himself escape censure for yielding to domestic influence, and following the advice of pernicious counsellors. The majority of the house of lords, however, was more particularly attacked: it was said, they were men who would mix blood with corruption; that they were friends of every despotism; and that they were representatives of Miguel and of Ferdinand, of Russian lords and German ladies. Similar meetings were held in Westminster, Southwark, Marylebone, St. Paneras, and Paddington. At Birmingham also, the news of Earl Grey’s resignation had no sooner arrived, than the inhabitants assembled at Newhall Hill, and a petition was voted to the house of commons, which, in addition to a prayer that the supplies might be stopped, contained this ominous sentence: “Your petitioners find it declared in the bill of rights that the people of England may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law; and they apprehend that this great right will be enforced generally, in order that the people may be prepared for any circumstances that may arise.” Some of the inhabitants defied the laws of their country by exhibiting printed placards in their windows to the effect that no taxes would be paid until the reform bill had passed. Similar meetings were held, similar petitions were got up, and similar language used at Manchester, Liverpool, and in various parts of Scotland and Ireland. The annals of England, indeed, clo not present a more alarming period than the interval between the 9th and the 16th of May. The language used at the numerous meetings indicated the bitterness of the disappointment which the people, or at least a certain portion of the people, felt, and their determination of having “the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill,” be the cost what it might. At a public meeting at Paddington, Mr. Hume told the multitude, “that military were marching upon the metropolis; and he asked whether, when other nations were free, they would submit to walk the streets with the brand of slavery upon them? whether they were prepared to bend before a military yoke?” He added that there were one hundred and fifty peers against them, but he did not know how many women, though he heard there were some. This allusion to the queen was immediately followed by groans; and shortly after her majesty, while taking an airing, was grossly insulted by the populace. In fact the king himself, at this period, learned the true value of the shoutings which had attended him as the personal protector of the reform bill. In one of the metropolitan unions a member was loudly applauded for declaring that till the reform bill was passed there was no William IV., but only a Duke of Clarence. The queen, also, was dragged forward, as an active enemy of the bill, to be made the theme of atrocious insult.

In the meantime the king found a difficulty in forming an administration. As soon as he had resolved to accept the resignation of his cabinet, he sent for Lord Lyndhurst, desiring that nobleman to obtain the opinion of parties respecting the advice which he had rejected, and also authorising him to adopt measures for the formation of a new ministry. At the same time his majesty declared, that “extensive reform was necessary, and was the express condition on which such a ministry must be based.” Lord Lyndhurst, on receiving his majesty’s commands, immediately waited upon the Duke of Wellington. The sentiments of his grace on the subject of reform had been fully and openly declared; but he, nevertheless, was found willing to make large sacrifices, and to encounter any obloquy, in order to extricate his majesty from embarrassment. He desired no office, he said, much less that of prime-minister; yet if necessary for the king’s service, he was ready to serve in any way that might be thought fit. After some consultation, these noble lords considered it advisable to offer the first place to Sir Robert Peel. He was asked if he would accept the office of prime-minister; on the clear understanding that he must carry through a measure of extensive reform, in fulfilment of his majesty’s declaration? Sir Robert replied that by an “extensive reform” he assumed to be understood all the principles of the bill, and that under such a condition, it was impossible to accept office: hostile as he uniformly had been to every plan of extensive reform, he felt that he could be of no service to the king or to the country. Lord Lyndhurst communicated the nature of his commission to several other influential persons, and they were not unwilling to take subordinate situations, but no one came forward as a leader. In the meantime Lord Ebrington’s motion interposed insurmountable difficulties in the way of negotiations. The new ministry was of necessity to be sought for among the opponents of the bill; office must be accepted in defiance of the lower house; and the utter hopelessness of any change from a dissolution of parliament was evident from the agitation already distracting the country. Lord Lyndhurst, therefore, was compelled to inform his majesty that the commission with which he had been entrusted had failed. The king was now reduced to the necessity of renewing his intercourse with his former ministers. On the 10th Earl Grey announced in the house of lords that he had that day received a communication from his majesty, though of too recent a date to be followed by any decided consequence. Both houses adjourned to the 17th; but before the commons separated, a debate took place on the presentation of the London petition, which for boldness of invective and declamation was scarcely ever surpassed. It turned chiefly on the supposed conduct of the Duke of Wellington, and some others, in accepting office under the peculiar circumstances of that period. On the 17th, however, the lords had no sooner met, than the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst gave an explanation of their conduct in this matter. The Duke of Wellington remarked:—“When his majesty found that he could not consistently with his duty to the state, follow the advice of his confidential servants, so little communication had he with men other than his responsible advisers, that he had had recourse to a nobleman, whose judicial functions took him almost out of the line of politics, to inquire whether means existed, and what means, of forming an administration on the principle of carrying into execution an extensive reform. That nobleman communicated to me the difficulties in which his majesty was placed, in order to ascertain how far it was in my power to assist in extricating him from them. With this view, I thought it my duty to institute similar inquiries of others, the rather as I was myself as unprepared as his majesty for the advice which his ministers had tendered, and for the consequences which had ensued from its being rejected. On inquiry I found that there was a large number of most influential persons not indisposed to support a government formed to aid his majesty in resisting the advice tendered to him by his late administration. Under this conviction I attended his majesty; and my advice to him was, not that he should appoint me Iris minister, but certain members of the other house of parliament. So far from seeking office for myself, I merely named those persons I thought best qualified for the service; adding, that, for my own part, whether I was in office or out of office, he and those persons might depend upon my most strenuous support. The object of this advice and tender of assistance was to enable his majesty to form an administration upon the principle of resisting the advice which he had just rejected. These are the first steps of the transaction; and I believe they show that, if ever there was an instance in which the king acted with honesty and fairness towards his servants, and if ever there was an instance in which public men, opposed to those servants, kept aloof from intrigue, and from the adoption of all means except the most honourable, in promoting their own views of the public weal, this was that individual instance; and I will add with reference to myself, that these transactions show that, so far from being actuated by those motives of personal aggrandizement, with which I have been charged by persons of high station in another place, my object was, that others should occupy a post of honour, and that for myself I was willing to serve in any capacity, or without any official capacity, so as to enable the crown to carry on the government.” Lord Lyndhurst, in explaining the part he had taken in the matter, bitterly complained of being calumniated by the press, which, he said, now reigned paramount over the legislature and the country. “As far as I am myself concerned,” he said, “I despise these calumnies. They may wound, however, the feelings of those allied to me by the dearest ties, and so far they are a source of pain to myself; but apart from the feelings of others, I hold them in the utmost scorn.” Several noble lords, although they had in no way been connected with the transactions which had been explained, declared that the conduct of the Duke of Wellington had been high-minded and disinterested. He had been hunted down day after day because he had dared to become minister; and it turned out that he had neither accepted nor sought office. Earl Grey expressed his surprise that the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst should have indulged in violent invective against the reform bill and ministers, and “dinned their lordships’ ears” with denunciations of the measure, and declarations that the bill, instead of saving, would tend to the destruction of that house and of the monarchy. He thought differently. There were clangers, not imaginary or hypothetical, but substantial and imminent, both to that house and to the monarchy, to be apprehended from proceedings which tended to a collision between the hereditary and representative branches of the constitution. He concluded by declaring that his continuance in office must depend on his conviction of his own ability to carry into full effect the bill on their lordships’ table, unimpaired in principle and all essential details. The Earl of Carnarvon said, that if he could venture to make any comment on the reasons assigned for the proceedings of ministers, he would say that they had hurried on in their violent course, because they feared that if their opponents were permitted to introduce their measures, not all the power and influence of ministers could have produced a collision between the two houses. It was his duty, as the continued day for the committee had been fixed on his motion, now to get rid of it. He therefore moved that “the order for the committee on the reform bill be discharged.” He added:—“Thus I leave it to other noble lords to do their dirty work.” The order was accordingly discharged.

On Friday, the 18th of May, on the assembling of the peers, the Earl of Harewood asked Earl Grey whether it was yet settled that ministers were to continue in office? His lordship answered, that in consequence of having received the king’s request to that effect, and in consequence of now finding himself in a situation which would enable him to carry through the bill unimpaired in its efficiency, he and his colleagues did remain in office. He moved that the committee on the bill, under these circumstances, should be taken on Monday. The Earl of Harewood continued, that he had understood the continuance of Earl Grey in office depended on the power he should receive to carry the reform bill—a power which might be conferred by the creation of peers, or by the act and will of certain lords in seceding from their opposition to the bill. In the choice of these two evils, it was his duty to select the lesser. He had opposed the bill on the second reading, and he would likewise have opposed many of its details in the committee, but the wiser course would be now to withhold further opposition to the bill, rather than render the calamity of creating a great number of peers unavoidable. But though he adopted this course, let it be understood that it was by compulsion, and with a feeling that he never would again enjoy an opportunity of uttering in that house one word in an independent form. Bidding farewell to freedom of debate, let those who had brought this infliction on the country be responsible for their acts when the nation came to its senses. On the other hand, the Earl of Winchilsea, while he admitted that the independence of the house was at an end, and that their lordships might be pointed at with scorn, as belonging to a body which went through the mockery of legislative functions while it was denied all legislative power, expressed his determination still to offer every possible opposition to the bill. Earl Grey had not yet stated in what shape the power of carrying the bill had been conferred; and Lord Wharncliffe, conceiving that before any peer could decide on the course he would adopt, it was necessary to know, put the question direct to him, whether their deliberations were to be carried on under the immediate threat of a creation of peers? or whether it was to be understood that a certain number of peers would absent themselves from the house on the occasion of the discussions that might ensue upon the bill? Earl Grey replied, “I do not feel myself called on to answer the questions which have been put to me by the noble baron. I have already stated to your lordships that I continue to hold office under the expectation that the bill will be successfully carried in its future stages through this house. I do not consider that the noble lord has any right to call on me for any further explanation; and I will add, that I wish to be bound only by what I state myself.” Lord Wharncliffe rejoined, that he could come to no conclusion as to what course he should take until he saw more clearly the real position in which their lordships were placed. The noble earl opposite had no right to call for any statement as to the course his opponents meant to pursue when he hesitated to communicate his own. The Earl of Carnarvon repeated Lord Wharncliffe’s question, whether it was intended to create peers? but the minister replied that it was a question which ought not to be put, and one which he would not answer. The motion for going into committee on Monday was agreed to.

Although ministers, however, refused to give any answer as to the intended creation of peers, it was soon known that this power was assured to them—at least, as an alternative or an expedient. Sir Herbert Taylor, in the name and by the authority of the king, wrote a circular note to the opposition peers, stating his majesty’s wish that they should facilitate the passing of the bill by absenting themselves from the house when any important part of the measure to which they could not consent came under discussion. Such a request implied that his majesty desired it, as the only means of avoiding the creation of a number of peers; and the opposition lords,—that is, the majority,—understanding the hint, were thus compelled to abandon for a time their rights and duties as legislators. During the remainder of the discussions on the bill, therefore, not more than between thirty or forty attended at a time. The king and the lords were equally opposed to this measure, but both were compelled to bend to the will of the house of commons.

A similar announcement to that which Earl Grey made in the lords was made in the commons by Lord Althorp. This announcement stopped another address to the king in the house of commons, which Lord Milton intended to have brought forward, and furnished to Sir Robert Peel an opportunity of explaining the share he had taken in the late negotiations to form a new administration.

REFORM BILL PASSED.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

The committee on the bill was resumed on Monday, the 21st of May, and, as was natural, it now passed rapidly through the upper house. The inverted order of the schedules, taken up at Lord Lyndhurst’s suggestion, was adopted, though in a very different spirit from that which was in the noble mover’s mind. Schedule C was voted at the first sitting up to the Tower Hamlets; and next day the clauses on the Tower Hamlets, to which so many objections had been raised, were passed. Lord Ellenborough wished the county of Lancashire to be divided into three districts, each retaining two members, he conceiving that as the bill now stood the agricultural interest of that county would be utterly helpless; but there were only fifteen peers who ventured to vote with him, while seventy-five adhered to the bill. The bill, in fact, passed, with some few slight verbal alterations, on the 4th of June, one hundred and sixty voting for it, and twenty-two against it. The bill was now ordered back to the commons, and the amendments of their lordships having been agreed to on the following day without any discussion regarding their merits, the royal assent was given to the bill by commission on the 7th of June.

IRISH AND SCOTCH REFORM BILLS PASSED.

It was easy to foresee that the English reform bill having passed, those relating to Scotland and Ireland would be equally triumphant. Deliberation was, in point of fact, at an end. Both bills had been read a first time, and had awaited on the table of the house of commons the fate of the English bill in the house of lords. The bill relating to Scotland was read in the commons on the 21st of May, the day on which the restored ministry resumed the committee in the lords on the English bill. No resistance was made to the second reading, the opposition knowing that it was hopeless, and feeling assured that this measure must follow as part of the general scheme, all the elements of which had triumphed in regard to England. Various amendments were moved in the committee, but they were all rejected by large majorities, and it passed the third reading unmutilated. In the house of lords also, as in the commons, no opposition was made to the second reading, and it passed that house on the 13th of July, The Irish bill called forth more resistance than that of Scotland, though its triumph from the first was equally certain. Mr. Lefroy moved, on its re-introduction, that it should be read that day six months. He said, that if a reform bill was to be passed at all, the present measure, in so far as the country representation was concerned, was not very objectionable; but he could discover no advantage to be derived from it in respect to the alterations in the boroughs. Seven of these boroughs had sent reformers to parliament, and eight possessed an open constituency. In the others the constituency varied from twelve to ninety-four, and none of them could be called decayed boroughs; on the contrary, they were more flourishing than at the time when they received the franchise. Of the one hundred Irish members, eighty-three were popularly returned. Where then, he asked, was the necessity or expediency of the measure? Would any rational man have deemed a reform bill necessary in England under such circumstances? And while the bill was unnecessary, he continued, it was also dangerous—dangerous not merely to the Protestant church of Ireland, but to the sister church of England, and the integrity of the empire. The fall of the Irish church would endanger the connection between the two countries. The leader of the Catholic population in Ireland had told them to choose reformers as the best means of opening the way to repealers; yet it was proposed by opening the boroughs to put them into the hands of this party—a party whose influence would be increased to an extent that no government would have power to oppose. The amendment was seconded by Lord Castlereagh, and supported by Messrs. Shaw, Conolly, and Gordon, who all said that the bill would be ruinous to the Protestant interest in Ireland. Messrs. O’Connell and Shiel defended the bill against the objections urged by the supporters of the amendment, but pointed out other defects, which they expressed a hope would be remedied in the committee. For instance, the name of the ten-pound franchise had been given to Ireland without the reality; the Irish and English freeholders, from the nature of their tenures, and the disproportion between their means, were in opposite positions to each other. In respect to houses also, the franchise was too high; and, instead of being the instrument of reform, it would be productive of corruption. Thus Portarlington, which was formerly sold by a single proprietor, would now be sold by one hundred members. In England, no man was called upon to show his title unless by previous notice; but in Ireland a scrutinising assistant-barrister examined it without any process being-served on the man who came to vote. In Ireland, also, half-a-crown was the sum paid for registry; in England it was a shilling only. Was this equality? Was this union? Could this conduce to the continuance of the union between the two countries? But while he found so much in the bill of an objectionable nature, he would support it for the good it would effect; he would support it because it would strike down the corporation of Dublin, and because it would open the borough of Belfast, whose representative had hitherto been appointed by the noble Marquis of Donegal, like his groom or his footman. After a few words of opposition from Sir Robert Peel, the house divided on the second reading, and it was carried by two hundred and forty-six against one hundred and thirty.

It was in the committee that the attacks of the Irish reformers against the bill commenced in reality. The emancipation act had been accompanied by the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. Mr. O’Connell moved that it should be an instruction to the committee to restore the franchise to these freeholders. The Irish reform bill exhibited gross injustice. England was to have thirty members more than had originally been contemplated, but Ireland was not to derive any such advantage. It was always the way when Ireland was concerned; her aid was invoked in the battle, but when the division of the spoil came, she was forgotten. And in the present instance insult had been added to injury. The Scotch bill had been brought forward by a Scotch legal luminary. Was there no Irish gentleman to whom ministers could entrust the Irish reform bill? Ministers wished to put an end to agitation in Ireland. But how did they set about it? By perpetrating an act of injustice, which would perpetuate agitation. The amendment was supported by Mr. Shiel, who contended that the restoration of the forty-shilling freeholders was just in principle, because it would assimilate the constituency of England and Ireland, and because it would conciliate the people of Ireland without being detrimental to England. Ministers replied, that if the proposed instruction was carried, it would have, the effect of impeding, if not ultimately defeating, the measure. Mr. O’Connell’s motion was lost! by a majority-of one hundred and twenty-two against seventy-three; and he immediately moved, as a modification of it; that “the franchise should be restored to persons seized of an estate for three lives, renewable for ever, of the yearly value of forty shillings, provided that the rent did not exceed four pounds per annum, of which one-third was to be profit, and provided also that the renewal fee did net exceed two-pounds.” This was opposed by Mr. Stanley, on the ground, that it would create a minute subdivision of independent, property, and by that means would also create an immense multitude of independent voters. The motion, was not pressed to a division; and Mr. O’Connell then took up the subject of the increase of representation in Ireland. Of the five additional members, one was to be given to the University of Dublin, which was now to return two members; and Mr. O’Connell and his party objected to this arrangement, because it would strengthen the Protestant interest. Sir Robert Heron moved as an instruction to the committee, that the University of Dublin should continue to return only one member. The motion was opposed by Mr. Crampton, the solicitor-general of Ireland, who vindicated the character of the electors of Dublin University from the attacks which the Irish reformers made upon it. The proposal was rejected by a large majority: and Mr. O’Connell returned to the attack by moving, as an instruction to the committee, to extend the franchise to persons occupying freehold estates of the yearly value of five pounds. His motion was founded on this reasoning—that, as Ireland was a poorer country, a ten-pound qualification in England was a twenty-pound qualification in Ireland, and the constituency of the latter would consequently be curtailed. In his speech, he said that the object of all parties seemed to be to exclude the people of Ireland as much as possible from the enjoyment of the franchise. He was justified in making this charge, when he saw two members given to Trinity College, Dublin, in the constituency of which it was impossible there should be a Roman Catholic voter. If the system was acted on, the Catholic question still remained to be settled. Mr. Stanley complained of the unreasonable conduct of Irish members, and especially of Mr. O’Connell, who first desired alterations in the bill, and then complained that it was no longer the same. The change in the plan of registration, he said, had been recommended by Sir Henry Darnel. An alteration had also been made in the leasehold from twenty-one years to fourteen, and this was done at the instance of Irish members. Mr. O’Connell himself had entreated ministers to omit the fifty-pound qualification, which was complied with: but he had hardly effected his purpose, when he turned round and accused the government of making unfavourable alterations in the bill. Members might be astonished, but it was fact, that he had given notice of a motion for the restoration of a qualification which was omitted on his own suggestion. This motion was likewise rejected; as was another, made by Mr. Mullins, to extend the franchise in counties to leaseholders for nineteen years, at a rent of thirty pounds. Ministers, however, yielded something in the committee by consenting to extend the franchise to leaseholders for twenty years, having a beneficial interest to the amount of ten pounds. Mr. Shiel divided the house without success, to get rid of a proviso that required ten-pound voters in boroughs to pay all municipal taxes. The recorder of Dublin was equally unsuccessful in a motion tending to place Irish freemen on the same footing with their brethren in English boroughs; that is, to have their rights as freemen perpetuated, instead of terminating with the lives of those existing, as provided in the Irish bill Before the bill left the committee, Mr. Dominick Browne, one of the members for the county of Mayo, proposed a different plan for Ireland; but his proposition was not entertained by the house. The bill passed the commons on the 18th of July, and was read a second time in the lords on the 23rd. No division took place; but the Duke of Wellington stated at length his objections to the measure, which were replied to by Lord Plunkett. The bill passed through the committee in the peers almost without discussion. The only amendment of importance was one which had been rejected in the commons; namely, to place the rights of freemen in boroughs on the same footing on which they stood in the English bill, by continuing them in perpetuity instead of confining them simply to the children of freemen born after the passing of the bill. When the bill returned to the commons, Mr. Stanley declared that he felt a strong repugnance to this amendment. It was, however, allowed to stand, and by the first week of August all the three bills had received the royal assent.

BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS, ETC.

Soon after, the reform bill was carried the house of commons was filled with complaints, that, in its working, it was producing, extensive disfranchisement among the new constituencies. It was required by the English bill, that the intended voter should have paid up by the 20th of July all rates and taxes, payable in the preceding April in respect of the premises on which he claimed. That period was now past, and the non-payers were so numerous as greatly to diminish the new constituencies. Under these circumstances Lord Althorp, on the 7th of August, moved for leave to bring in a bill “for allowing further time for persons to pay the poor-rates, in pursuance of an act passed in the present session to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales.” This was resisted on the ground that the act contained no clause allowing it to be altered, during the present session, and that the proposition was a breach of pledge. The house, it was said, had fully discussed and finally passed a measure effecting a great and extensive change in the constitution of the country, and that measure had gone forth to the country as being the final act of those who had originated it; yet it was now proposed to make an alteration in one of its most essential provisions. The alteration proposed was not unreasonable in itself; but there was danger in permitting any alteration to be made with respect to the reform act. Who could say, if changes were to be made, when they would stop? Lord Althorp argued that there were precedents which would enable the house to get over the difficulty in point of form, but as the bill was to be opposed, and as, in that case, it could not be carried through before the 20th of August, he would withdraw it altogether; he was the more ready to do so, because he thought that the inconvenience had been exaggerated. The subject, however, was taken up by Colonel Evans, who thought that a great number of tax and rate payers entitled to vote were defaulters, and therefore not able to enjoy their franchise. He moved a resolution, which, after adverting to the disfranchisement likely to arise, suggested that the mischief might be remedied by substituting for “the 6th of April,” in the 27th clause of the reform act, “the 25th of September last” for the payment of the poor rates, and the “10th of October last” for the payment of the assessed taxes. This motion was only supported by two members, yet the colonel brought the matter before the house again on the 10th of August, by moving “that an address be presented to his majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to prorogue the present, and convene another short session of parliament, to take into consideration the unexpected disfranchisement produced by certain restrictive clauses of the act for amending the representation of the people in parliament.” This motion was opposed by ministers, and was not pressed to a division. It had become clear, indeed, that many of the statements concerning the number of non-payers were without good foundation, and therefore there was no reason for altering the clause. About the same time objections were raised to the boundaries of boroughs as laid down by the commissioners whom ministers had employed, principally on the ground of the influence which, it was supposed, had here and there been given to individuals, by adding large portions of their lands to boroughs. It was objected, for instance, that, in the case of Whitehaven, a rural district, comprehending thirty voters, had been added to a borough containing three hundred. It was said that this was done to conciliate opposition; as this district was the property of Lord Lonsdale, it was stated, he would acquire by its junction with the town a preponderating influence. An amendment was made to exclude it, but ministers resisted it, and it was lost. Lord Althorp said, that nobody who knew the state of parties would believe in these theories of conciliation; and that Lord Lonsdale would have no more influence in the borough than the legitimate influence to which rank and property entitled their possessor. A similar objection was stated against the boundary allotted to Stamford, which was followed by a similar motion of exclusion; but it found only nineteen supporters, while one hundred and seventy-two voted against it.

Another measure connected with the changes in the representation was a bill brought in to amend and render more effectual the laws relating to bribery and corruption in elections. Lord John Russell, who brought in the bill, stated that its principal object was to subject all cases of bribery to a more complete investigation. With that view, the bill extended the term for presenting petitions complaining of bribery at elections from fourteen days to two years; and provided that it would be lawful for any person to petition the house during that period, complaining that the election of any particular borough had been carried by bribery and corruption. The bill also provided that where the parties complained of undue elections in consequence of bribery, if they proved their case, all their costs and expenses in sustaining their petition should be defrayed by the public. Objections were urged against this measure from both sides of the house. It was argued, that the extension of the period for petitioning would keep members in a state of vassalage for two years; that a new petition might be presented every week, if it only related to a different alleged act; and that the terms which defined what bribery was were so vague, and yet so comprehensive, that it was impossible for a member to know whether a charge could be brought against him or not. Some members thought that nothing but the ballot would prevent bribery, while others suggested that every member on entering the house should take an oath that he had neither given, nor promised to give, or would promise hereafter, by himself, his agents, or friends, any money, security, order, or other thing of value, or any pecuniary fee, or reward of any kind, in consideration of any vote or votes, by which his return to that house had been promoted or served. The bill passed the commons; but when it came to the lords its postponement for six months was moved by Lord Wynford, and the lord chancellor agreeing with him as to the impossibility of carrying its provisions into effect, the bill was thrown out.

During the discussion on the reform question, one strong objection against the destruction of nomination-boroughs had been, that without them there would be no certain means of members who vacated their seats by accepting office of securing a new return. In order to obviate this inconvenience, the Marquis of Northampton brought in a bill to repeal, in so far as certain offices were concerned, the act of Queen Anne, by which an acceptance of any of them vacated a member’s seat. On the motion for the second reading of this bill, the Duke of Wellington said there could be no doubt that some measure of this description was necessary; but it appeared to him that the present bill was only a half measure, because it provided for only half of the inconvenience likely to result. He also objected to the bill being brought forward in the individual capacity of the noble marquis. As the inconvenience would arise from a government measure, government should introduce a remedy, and recommend it to both houses of parliament upon their own responsibility. The lord-chancellor likewise thought that the second reading should be delayed till the matter had been more ripely considered. The second reading, therefore, was postponed, and, as the end of the session approached, the bill was ultimately laid aside. The last subject of direct reform in the representation was introduced by Mr. Bulwer, who moved an address to the king, praying that his majesty would give the free inhabitants of New South Wales a representative system. He grounded their title to it on the score both of population and taxation; but while ministers admitted that New South Wales must in time have a representative body, they did not think the elements had yet been formed out of which a safe constituency could be created, and the motion was negatived.

COMMITTEES ON IRISH TITHES.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832—1833}

In the speech from the throne, on the opening of parliament, there was this clause:—“In parts of Ireland a systematic opposition has been made to the payment of tithes, attended in some instances with afflicting results; and it will be one of your first duties to inquire whether it may not be possible to effect improvements in the laws respecting this subject, which may afford the necessary protection to the established church, and at the same time remove the present causes of complaint.” Both houses, during this session, appointed select committees to inquire into the collection and payment of tithes in Ireland, and the state of the laws relating thereto. The report of the committee of the house of lords was presented on the 16th of February, and that of the commons on the 17th. The report stated that in different parts of Ireland resistance had been made to the payment of tithes, by means of organised, illegal, and in some instances armed combinations, which, if allowed to extend themselves successfully to other districts, would be applied to other objects, and ultimately subvert the dominion of the law, and endanger the peace and security of society. In many districts the report further stated, where resistance had been made to the payment of tithes, the clergy had been reduced to the greatest distress; and in order to obviate this, the committee recommended that his majesty should be empowered to advance to the incumbent, where tithes or compositions had been illegally withheld, or to his representatives, sums not exceeding the amount of the arrears due for the tithes of the year 1836, proportioned to the income of each, according to a scale diminishing as their incomes increased. It further recommended that as a security for repayment of the sums so advanced, his majesty should be empowered to levy, under the authority of a law to be passed for that purpose, the amount of arrears due for the tithes of the year 1831, without prejudice to the claims of the clergy for any arrear that might be due for a longer period. Where the arrears were due in a compounded parish, the sum to be advanced was to be regulated by the composition, and where there was no special agreement, by an average of the produce of the tithe for the years 1827, 1828, and 1829. As the crown was to become entitled to the arrears, it was recommended that the attorney-general should be empowered to sue for them, either by petition in chancery or exchequer, or by civil bill at the county quarter-session. On the tithe system, the committee stated that they had seen sufficient to satisfy them, “that with a view to serve both the interests of the church and the lasting welfare of Ireland, a permanent change of system will be required: that such a change, to be safe and satisfactory, must involve a complete extinction of tithes, including those belonging to lay impropriators, by commuting them for a charge upon land, or an exchange for or investment in land, so as effectually to secure the revenues of the church, so far as relates to tithes, and at the same time to remove all pecuniary collisions between the clergymen and the tithe-payer, which, at present, were unavoidable.” On the 8th of March, the Marquis of Lansdowne in the upper house, and Mr. Stanley in the commons, moved resolutions adopting and embodying the recommendations of the report. In the lords no opposition was offered to them, but in the commons it did not pass so readily. Mr. Stanley said that as he intended to state the whole plan which government had in contemplation, with all its details, he should move for that purpose that the house should resolve itself into a committee on the report; a course which he deemed advisable, because it would put it into his power to give every explanation which might be required, and to take the opinion of the committee separately on each of the resolutions. This motion was sternly opposed by the Irish members. Mr. Brownlow led the attack, by maintaining that the report was too partial and imperfect to be made the subject of consideration in committee. He moved “that the debate be adjourned, until the committee had gone into a full inquiry into the subject of tithes, and the appropriation of church property in Ireland, and until the evidence and report of the committee came before parliament.” In support of the amendment, Mr. Shiel said that the Irish members did not oppose the resolutions: they only said, “Wait for the final report, and do not decide on a document resting on one-sided evidence.” Catholics, he said, had been excluded from the committee, and only one out of eighteen Catholic witnesses had been examined. Was this just, or fair dealing? It was as if a jury were desired to retire on the closing of the plaintiff’s case. They find their verdict; judgment is given; and then the defendant was desired to proceed with her case. If the committee had confined themselves to the recommendation of assisting the clergy, the Irish members would not have complained; but while they came with a purse of gold for the church, they also came with a rod of iron for the people. Mr. Shiel proceeded next to discuss the plan which was supposed to be unknown, in doing which he discovered the true objection of the Irish members to it, namely, that the Protestant church of Ireland was still to be preserved. Other Irish members urged the same objections; and added, that if every thing else in the supposed plan were right, it was wrong to pay the arrears to the clergy, and then ask repayment by coercive measures. Lord Ebrington, who had been on the committee, and concurred in its report, now sided with the Irish members. Sir Robert Peel said that the discussion on the anticipated propositions was foreign to the question before the house. The question was, whether the propositions should be explained now, or after the house had gone into a committee. Pie thought that the latter was the course most conformable to the practice of the house; and by supporting a motion to that effect, no member pledged himself in the least to the proposition of the government. Lord Althorp and Mr. Stanley complained of the course the Irish members had taken in commenting on propositions of which they knew nothing; and on a division the amendment of the Irish members was lost by an overwhelming majority.

The committee was delayed till the 18th, on which day Mr. Stanley moved a series of resolutions similar to those which had been agreed to by the lords. The first of these resolutions was, “That it appears to the house that in several parts of Ireland, an organised and systematic opposition has been made to the payment of tithes, by which the law has been rendered unavailing, and many of the clergy of the established church have been reduced to great distress.” Mr. Stanley entered at great length into the evidence which proved both parts of this resolution. It was quite clear from the evidence that a system of opposition had been established in Ireland to the payment of tithes, which could not be overcome by ordinary means. Every plan had been adopted by which the operations of the law might be traversed. Tithe-proctors and process-servants were violently assailed; impediments were interposed to prevent the seizure and sale of cattle; and, in a word, every system of determined and organised opposition was manifested that could be displayed by a whole population acting as one man against the payment of a claim legally due. Having proved the truth of the first resolution, Mr. Stanley proceeded to the second, which provided means of relief. It read thus:—“That, in order to afford relief to the distress, it is expedient that his majesty should be empowered, upon the application of the lord-lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, to direct that there be issued from the consolidated fund such sums as may be required for this purpose. That the sums so issued shall be distributed by the lord-lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, by and with the advice of the privy-council, in advances proportioned to the incomes of the incumbents of benefices wherein the tithes, or tithe composition lawfully due may have been withheld, according to a scale diminishing as the incomes of such incumbents increase.” To this resolution Mr. Stanley said that he did not anticipate any objection, inasmuch as it was from no fault of the clergy that the resistance, and the consequent distress had arisen. He then proceeded to the third resolution, which provided for the reimbursement of the sums advanced:—“That, for the more effectual vindication of the authority of the law, and as a security for the repayment of the sums to be advanced, his majesty may be empowered to levy, under the authority of an act to be passed for this purpose, the amount of arrears for the tithes or tithe-composition of the whole or any part of the year 1831, without prejudice to the claims of the clergy for any arrear which may be due for a longer period; reserving, in the first instance, the amount of such advances, and paying over the remaining balance to the legal claimants.” The last resolution pledged the house to an alteration of the existing tithe system on some principle of commutation, though Mr. Stanley said he was not prepared to state the nature of the change. Those who dissented from the resolutions consisted chiefly of the Irish members, and, singular enough, their opposition was chiefly confined to the last resolution. This was, it was said, to introduce a change of system, but it implied that the tithe was still to be a fund available to the established church. It was said to be unjust to demand extraordinary powers for the execution of a law acknowledged to be bad and mischievous, and that every renewed attempt to recover tithes by coercion would only hasten the ruin of the church establishment in Ireland. Some adjustment must be made by which the church property should be applied to the support of the three prominent sects in Ireland, instead of its being bestowed exclusively on one, which only comprehended about a third of the population. It was admitted at the same time that it was right to relieve the clergy who were suffering; but it was asserted that the resolutions held out no hope of any substantial amendment of the existing state of things. Mr. Shiel argued that the last resolution did not pledge the house not to appropriate church property as it might deem fit, and insinuated that this was what the ministry meant, though they could not venture to speak it out plainly. Sir Robert Peel supported the plan of the ministry, for, although hostile, he said, on general principles, to pledges that the house would do something at a future period, he thought that the interests of religion and the Protestant church required that the present case should be made an exception. As to the proposal to delay the question till the committee should have given a full report, he deemed it unnecessary and mischievous. If the spirit of combination was to be checked, it should be so at once; it would be true mercy to check it as soon as possible, for any delay would only add wings to its already rapid progress. The first resolution was agreed to finally without a division. On the second, Mr. Hunt divided the house, as he did not think the distress of the clergy in Ireland was such as to warrant money being taken out of the pockets of the people of this country for their relief. He was, however, only supported by eleven members, while eighty-six voted for the resolution. The third then passed without a division, and an amendment on the fourth was negatived without being put to the vote, so that the whole were carried. The bill was brought in to be read a second time on the 6th of April, when the Irish opposition pressed for a delay on the ground that it was inconsistent with sound policy to carry through this coercive measure before introducing the other measure for the change or extinction of tithes; that if the arrangements regarding the latter were complicated and required delay, that was the best reason for delaying the former, and that Mr. Stanley, the Irish secretary, ought to take advantage of the Easter recess, then approaching, to pay a visit to Ireland. Ministers resisted all delay, however, and the second reading was carried by a majority of one hundred and nineteen against twenty-one. It was read a third time, without much discussion, on the 16th of April; and in the house of lords, where the resolutions had been agreed to, the bill was passed without opposition.