Chapter XLIII: {william IV. 1832–1833} (1)

_Meeting of Parliament; Reelection of Mr. Manners Sutton as
Speaker..... . Opening of the Reformed Parliament by the
King in person..... Case of Mr. Pease..... Irish Coercion
Bill..... Irish Church Bill..... Irish Tithe Bill.....
Financial Statements..... Bank of England Charter
renewed..... . East India Question..... Abolition of Slavery
in the Colonies..... Factory Bill..... The Corn Laws.....
Resolutions against Bribery, &c. Bill to Remove the
Civil Disabilities of Jews..... Prorogation of
Parliament..... Foreign Affairs_

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT—RE-ELECTION OF MR. MANNERS SUTTON AS SPEAKER.

{A.D. 1833}

The first reformed parliament was opened by commission on the 29th of January. The first business of the commons was to elect a speaker. Mr. Manners Sutton had not been advanced to the peerage, although such a mark of honour is usually bestowed on those who have filled the chair for so long a period, and with such distinguished applause. At the general election he had been returned one of the members for the university of Cambridge; and ministers having obtained his consent to put him in nomination, resolved to support his re-election as chairman. This intention was not concealed; and on the meeting of parliament Mr. Hume moved that Mr. Littleton, one of the members for Staffordshire, should take the chair. The Radicals, of whom Mr. Hume was one of the leaders, took this step on the score of Mr. Manners Sutton’s politics, considering it a matter of the greatest importance that the speaker should concur generally in the political sentiments entertained by a majority of members. Mr. Hume’s motion was seconded by Mr. O’Connell, who denounced the intention of government as “another instance of the paltry truckling of the present administration.” On the other side, Lord Morpeth moved, and Sir Francis Burdett seconded the motion, that Mr. Manners Sutton should take the chair. In doing so, they insisted on the admitted fact of his superior qualification, as well as the candid and impartial conduct which he had observed during the late political struggles. Mr. Littleton himself requested Mr. Hume to withdraw his motion; but that gentleman declined to do so. Seeing the house universally in the favour of Mr. Manners Sutton, the Radicals now chiefly confined themselves to the question of the pension. The attorney and solicitor-general argued that there was no feasible ground for these objections, and asserted that he would have no claim to his retiring annuity. By act of parliament, any speaker was entitled to his salary till a successor was elected, and Mr. Manners Sutton, being thus entitled to his salary, he could have no claim for a pension. On a division, Mr. Manners Sutton was re-elected by a majority of two hundred and forty-one against thirty-one.

OPENING OF THE REFORMED PARLIAMENT BY THE KING IN PERSON.

The first session of the new parliament was opened by the king in person, on the 5th of February. His speech on this occasion took a comprehensive view of our foreign and domestic relations, in which the affairs of Holland, the approaching termination of the charters of the Bank and the East India Company, the temporalities of the church, and the state of Ireland, were prominently introduced.

In the house of lords the address was voted almost unanimously, a slight discussion only being elicited by the sentiments of Lord Aberdeen and the Duke of Wellington, against the foreign policy of government, and especially that regarding Portugal and Holland. Such harmony, however, did not exist in the commons. A part of the speech which pointed at the adoption of extraordinary measures to suppress insubordination, excited violent indignation among a large portion of the Irish members. Mr. O’Connell denounced the address as “bloody, brutal, and unconstitutional.” He concluded by moving an amendment, that the house do now resolve itself into a committee of the whole house to consider of the address to his majesty. Mr. Stanley replied in a speech of caustic severity, which the agitators of Ireland have never forgotten or forgiven. He argued that coercion was necessary; that crime could not be put down in Ireland but by the strong arm of the law. Colonel Davis considered Mr. Stanley’s speech as an insult to Ireland, and as proving that he was totally unfit for office. He was opposed to the repeal of the union; but unless justice were dealt out to Ireland by measures of relief being proposed, he would vote against the coercive policy contemplated by government. Mr. Roebuck expressed himself to the same effect: he would not join with ministers in doing what must produce a civil war in Ireland: if they did not take care, they would find the people rise up in such terrible array that they would not know where to turn. Lord Althorp declared that it was the intention of ministers to remove every grievance they possibly could; but, he asked, was it not a grievance that, in Ireland, life and property were not secure—that murder, burglary, and arson should exist in every part of that country? If it was their duty to remove grievances, ought they not to remove this grievance also? The debate was continued by adjournment on the three following days; the general strain of the arguments adduced coinciding with those expressed on the first day of the debate. The opposition to the address was chiefly conducted by Irish members, although they received likewise the support of Messrs. Hume, Cobbett, Bulwer, Tennyson, and Clay. Mr. Bulwer told ministers that the independent representatives of the people in that house, three hundred in number, were allied to no old party, and attached to no superstitious observance of Whig names; and that these members could not, night after night, hear grievances stated by the Irish members, which, received no other answers except demands for soldiery, without dropping off in serious defection from the ministerial majority. Mr. Tennyson said, that he had no doubt of the good intention of ministers; but he could not approve of their conduct in pressing the house to adopt the address. At the same time he could not support the amendment of Mr. O’Connell, and he therefore proposed another to this effect:—“That the house should declare its readiness to sanction such measures for restoring social order in Ireland, as might appear, on mature deliberation and inquiry, necessary, and to entrust his majesty’s official servants with additional power for that purpose, and to employ its best energies to the putting an end to the disturbances which affect that country; that, while the house would give a willing ear and earnest attention to the complaints and petitions of the Irish people, with the view to promoting an efficient remedy, it was prepared to resist by every means in its power all lawless attempts to effect a repeal of the legislative union between the two countries.” Mr. Macaulay taunted Mr. O’Connell with not having ventured to bring the question of repeal before the house. He asked, what was meant by the watchword of repeal of the union between Great Britain and Ireland. If those who used it meant a complete separation, or a species of Hibernian republic, their conduct was both comprehensible and consistent; but if, as they asserted, they only meant two separate independent legislatures, under the same monarch, the motion was inconsistent with the first principles of the science of government. After having shown this inconsistency by a chain of conclusive reasoning, he said, that he admitted Ireland had grievances to remove; but, he asked, was he in the meantime to see the law outraged and despised by a misguided multitude? Talk of the distribution of church property in a country where no property was respected! and be told that to enforce the laws against the robber, the murderer, and the incendiary, was to drive an injured people into civil war! Did those who talked thus wildly recollect that sixty murders, or attempts at murder, and six hundred burglaries, or attempts at burglary, were committed in one county alone, in the space of a few weeks? This was worse than civil war. He would rather live in the midst of many civil wars he had read of, than in some parts of Ireland. Civil war had commenced, and if not checked, it would end in the ruin of the empire. Mr. Shiel, in reference to repeal, entrenched himself behind quotations from speeches delivered by Lord Grey at the time of the union, in which he predicted that it would only lead to distress, suspicion, and resentment, and that the people of Ireland would seek an opportunity of recovering rights which they would believe to have been wrested from them by force. The interest of the debate ended with Mr. Shiel’s speech, although addresses were subsequently made by Mr. Grant, Mr. Hume, and Sir Robert Peel. On a division, Mr. O’Connell’s amendment was lost by a majority of four hundred and twenty-eight against forty; and Mr. Tennyson’s, by three hundred and ninety-three against sixty. On the bringing up of the report, Mr. Cobbett moved that the whole of the address should be rejected, and that another which he had concocted should be adopted. This crude amendment was negatived by an overwhelming majority: only twenty-three in a full house voted for it.

CASE OF MR. PEASE.

During the general election, the southern division of the county of Durham had returned Mr. Pease, a gentleman who belonged to the Society of Friends. On the 9th of February, when he appeared to be sworn in, as a Friend he refused to take an oath, but offered to give his solemn affirmation. He was desired by the speaker to withdraw, as no affirmation could be made without the sanction of the house. A committee was appointed, on the motion of Lord Althorp, to report what precedents were to be found on the journals, and what was the state of the law in regard to Friends being allowed to substitute affirmation for oath. The report of this committee was taken into consideration on the 14th, and its chairman, Mr. Wynn, moved that Mr. Pease was, on making his solemn affirmation, entitled to take his seat, without taking those oaths which were demanded from the other members of the house. Mr. Wynn stated, at great length, the reasons which induced him to make this motion, and the solicitor-general agreed in his views. It was quite clear, the latter said, that at the time of passing the 7th and 8th William III., Friends could not sit in parliament, having been excluded, along with all other dissenters, by the 30th Charles II.; but under the act of William they would have been admissible, if its provisions, as they ought to have been, had been construed liberally. At all events, the act of George II. removed every doubt: it was evident that the legislature, in passing that act, intended to put Friends on the same footing in England with all other dissenters, except Catholics; such being the case, the act ought to be construed in accordance with the intention of the legislature in passing it. The motion to allow Mr. Pease to make his solemn affirmation in place of the usual oath was agreed to unanimously.

IRISH COERCION BILL.

On the 15th of February, Earl Grey introduced into the house of lords a bill for the suppression of disturbances in Ireland. In doing so, his lordship related the evils which called for such a measure, clearly showing that it was necessary. In explaining the provisions by which ministers proposed to meet the evils, he said, that the bill combined many provisions of the several laws that had been passed both in the Irish and English parliament for the repression of such outrages as he had related, with such alterations as circumstances seemed to require. Provision was made for proclaiming districts in a state of disturbance; and it was provided that courts should be appointed in which offences connected with such districts were to be tried. It was also provided that persons prosecuted under this act should be obliged to plead forthwith, as in cases of felony, and not be permitted to delay their trial. By the bill the lord-lieutenant was to be empowered, on due information, to proclaim any district to be in a disturbed state. All persons were to be warned to abstain from seditious and illegal meetings; and no one was to be absent from their houses after sunset until sunrise, unless they could give good reason for their being abroad, under the penalty of being found guilty of a misdemeanour. Another provision was, that meetings for the purpose of petitioning parliament, or for discussing grievances, should not be held without giving ten days’ notice to the lord-lieutenant, or without his sanction. It was further thought advisable that proclaimed districts should, to a certain extent, be subjected to martial law. Military courts were to be formed for the trial of all offences under this act, with power to pronounce sentence as definitively as any commission of oyer and terminer. The lord-lieutenant was to have the power for the appointment of courts-martial; and it was provided that courts-martial should not consist of more than nine gentlemen nor less than five. It was further provided, that no officer under twenty-one years of age, or who had held his commission for less than two years, should act on such courts-martial; and that the said courts-martial should not have the power of trying for any offence to which a felonious punishment was attached, except by special direction of the lord-lieutenant; and that, in that case, they should only pronounce sentence of transportation, either for seven years or for life. It was made imperative that a serjeant-at-law or a king’s counsel should sit to assist in the judgment. A clause was likewise introduced to shield officers who had. acted on courts-martial under this act from future prosecution: any complaints made against them on account of their proceedings at any court-martial were to be inquired into by a court-martial to be called for that purpose. The bill further gave power to enter houses in search of arms; and persons refusing to produce them were subjected to punishment. It was also made a misdemeanour to disperse seditious papers in a proclaimed district; with a provision that, if the persons actually dispersing them gave up his employer, the former should be discharged. Finally, it was to be enacted, that when an individual arrested under this bill sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_ within three calendar months after his arrest, it should be a sufficient return to the writ, that the person so detained was kept in custody on a charge of offence perpetrated in a proclaimed district; at the same time it was provided that every person arrested should be brought to trial within three calendar months, or should be discharged. This bill was carried in the lords without opposition; some slight amendments being adopted in the committee with reference to the constitution, the powers, and the mode of procedure of the courts-martial. The bill, however, had to encounter a stormy course in the commons. On its appearance there on the 22nd, the first reading was postponed till the 27th, and Mr. O’Connell gave notice that he would move a call of the house for that day, and would repeat the call whenever he perceived any relaxation of its effects, so long as the bill was before them. He taunted ministers with the delay, which he insinuated was interposed to their remedial measures, and reminded them there was another house of parliament through which they might find it impossible to carry redress of grievances, whatever was the unanimity with which it enacted measures of coercion: “a house where any proposal springing from malignant hatred of Ireland was sure to pass.” Mr. Stanley denied that there was any necessity for remedial and repressive measures going on together; but at the same time he declared that if ministers found themselves unable to carry both they would resign office. On the 27th, the house having been called over, Lord Althorp moved the first reading of the bill. Ministers, he said, had waited to the last, to ascertain what order could be restored by the ordinary administration of the laws; and after relating at length the evils which afflicted Ireland—telling-many a tale of murder committed with impunity, even in broad daylight—he explained the provisions of the bill concocted to repress them. In conclusion, he asserted that the bill had no reference to the collection of tithes, as some had hinted, or any other individual purpose, except the maintenance of social order. The motion was met by an amendment from Mr. Tennyson, that the bill should be read a second time that day fortnight: his object being, as he stated, to give government an opportunity, whether in a select committee or otherwise, to satisfy the house that the dangers which had been stated really existed, and that there were no other means of effectually checking them. The amendment was supported by Messrs. Bulwer and Grote, the former of whom was averse to coercion in any shape, and contended that it would only produce mischief. Mr. Grote admitted that good grounds had been stated why the hands of justice should be strengthened, but he objected very strongly to courts-martial being employed in the administration of justice. To him it appeared that it would be much better if, instead of creating these courts-martial, the bill had granted more extensive, prompt, and efficient powers to the civil courts. Mr. Stanley, in reply to Mr. Grote, said it was true that the committee of last year had recommended a tribunal consisting of the magistrates of the neighbourhood sitting at quarter-sessions, and having power to sit by adjournment from time to time, till tranquillity was restored. He contended, however, that it would be a most objectionable thing to confide the administration of such a law to the local magistracy. The debate was continued up to the 5th of March, the Irish members threatening to have recourse to repeated motions of adjournment if any attempt was made to close the discussion prematurely. The opposition was composed of those who considered that the bill ought to be resisted altogether, as well as of those who thought that delay, as involved in the amendment, should be conceded. The members who opposed it were Messrs. O’Connell, Shiel, O’Connor, Baldwin, Barron, O’Dwyer, and Ruthven, among the Irish members; and Messrs. Romilly and Harvey, with Majors Beauclerk and Fancourt, among the English members. On the other hand, the necessity and efficacy of the bill were maintained by Lord John Russell, Sir R. Peel, and Mr. Macaulay, with other English members; and by Messrs. Carew, Tennent, and Lefroy, Lords Castlereagh and Acheson, and Sirs R. Bateson and C. Coote, among the Irish members. The opposition contended that no necessity for the bill had been made out to any extent, much less to the effect of utterly destroying the constitution over the whole of Ireland; that the “prædial agitation” had no connection with political agitation, and did not require any measure like this to put it down; and that the true cause of these disturbances was the refusal of ministers to abolish tithes, and the true object of it to prevent all expression of public sentiment in Ireland against their faithlessness and misgovernment. Those who supported the bill contended, on the other hand, that not only were the existing outrages such as to require extraordinary measures contrary to the constitution, and that when this necessity for overstepping the constitution once existed, it was safer to err on the side of vigour than to run the risk of a half-measure; but that it was likewise proved that this “prædial agitation,” as it was called by the repealers, was closely connected with the political agitation; the principle of both was intimidation. Sir Robert Peel admitted that the measure was one of intolerable severity if there was not a paramount necessity for it; but he denied that it was a suspension of the British constitution. As for the amendment proposing delay, Sir Robert said that he could not listen to it for one moment; the necessity for the measure was urgent. What could be answered to the astounding fact that in one year and in one province there had been one hundred and ninety-six murders and attempts at murder, one hundred and ninety-four burnings, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven burglaries and attacks on houses? How could the state of society be worse! and how could the people of Ireland be better off by persevering in maintaining the existing law! One hundred and ninety-six murders! Why, great battles had been fought, and great victories achieved by this country at a less expense of human blood. The battle of St. Vincent had been gained at less cost of life; the sanguinary bombardment of Algiers had caused less loss of life; and we had rolled back the impetuous tide of French exultation at the battle of Busaco with less loss of life. There was something animating in the idea of a battle; but what horrid recollections haunted the mind which had witnessed a murder! The debate was closed by Mr. O’Connell, who, smarting under the severe remarks made by some of the speakers, delivered a speech of remarkable energy. Ministers, he said, after combating at length the principles of the measures, had done their best by enforcing the tithe act; it was not their fault that the case was not worse. As for the attacks made upon himself he cared nothing for them personally; but the wrongs of his country were mixed up with them. Why, he asked, did they not pass an act to banish him? That would be fair and manly, and he would consent to it; but let them not banish the constitution from Ireland. He stood in a reformed parliament, in the midst of the representatives of the great and glorious people of England, who, disguise it as they might, were about to legislate against a single individual. What mighty work! He felt compassion for them. On a division, the first reading of the bill was carried by a majority of four hundred and sixty-six to eighty-nine. This was a preponderance which seemed to promise an easy passage through its other stages, especially as the discussion which is generally elicited at the second reading took place on the first reading. When, however, the order of the day for the second reading was moved, Mr. Hume opposed it in a violent speech, denouncing the apostasy of ministers: they had forgotten, he said, and violated the principles of which they had been the noisy advocates for twenty-five years, and to which advocacy they were wholly indebted for their political reputation and power. He warned them against “the wickedness of their proceedings,” and called on them to pause in their rash career. He moved as an amendment:—“That the house deeply laments the disturbed state of some of the districts in Ireland, and is willing to entrust to his majesty whatever powers may be necessary to control and punish the disturbers of the public peace, and the midnight violators of the law; but is of opinion that it has not been satisfactorily shown that the existing laws are not sufficient for these purposes, and it cannot, therefore, give its consent to a bill which places Ireland out of the pale of the British constitution.” Alderman Wood seconded this resolution; but, on a division which took place on the 11th, the second reading being put off on some matter of form to that day, the amendment was rejected, and the second reading carried by three hundred and sixty-three against eighty-four. But notwithstanding this overwhelming majority, the progress of the bill through the committee on the 13th, 15th, 18th, 19th, and 22nd of March was a series of conflicts. On the 13th Mr. O’Connell moved an instruction to the committee to “preserve inviolate and effectual the undoubted right of his majesty’s subjects in Ireland peaceably to propose, prepare, and present petitions for redressing grievances to his majesty, and to both houses of parliament.” This, he said, would still leave hope to his country. This proposition was rejected by one hundred and twenty-five against sixty-three; and in the committee Mr. O’Connell moved several amendments, which were likewise negatived. In the committee ministers themselves inserted a provision by which, even in proclaimed districts, offences purely political were withdrawn from the cognizance of the military tribunals, and left to be dealt with by the ordinary civil jurisdiction. Ministers, also, of their own accord, omitted, in the clause giving powers to search, arrest, and detain for trial in proclaimed districts, the provision which gave this power to “such other persons as the said lord-lieutenant shall think fit to authorize in that behalf.” Divisions took place on the clauses establishing the courts-martial, suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, and protecting those who should act under the bill: but these were all carried by large majorities. The bill finally passed on the 23rd of March, and was immediately sent back to the peers for their concurrence in the alterations which had been made in the commons. Their lordships took these into consideration on the 1st of April; and though much dissatisfaction was expressed by the peers with the amendments, and especially with a proviso inserted in one of the clauses, that no district should be proclaimed because tithes were not paid in it, the bill was finally passed. The effect of the bill was such as was desired. On the 10th of April the lord-lieutenant issued a proclamation suppressing the association of volunteers, after which he applied the provisions of the act to the county of Kilkenny with the best effect. It soon appeared, indeed, that the list of outrageous offenders against the laws decreased throughout the country. The discussions on the coercion act had produced many personal conflicts in debate between Mr. O’Connell and the Irish secretary. O’Connell seemed to regard Mr. Stanley with bitter hostility, arising partly from the vigour with which he repelled the attack of the repealers, and from the supposition that he was not disposed to give up any of the revenues of the Irish church. Mr. Stanley, however, now retired from the battle by accepting the more tranquil office of colonial secretary, which had become vacant by Viscount Goderich being made lord-privy-seal, and advanced a step in the peerage by becoming Earl of Papon. Sir John Cam Hobhouse succeeded Mr. Stanley as Irish secretary.

IRISH CHURCH BILL.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

While carrying on their measures for tranquillizing Ireland, ministers had uniformly admitted that grievances existed in Ireland which ought to be redressed. They had also declared their readiness to propose expedients for that purpose. At the head of these grievances, the Irish established church had always been placed, it standing in the peculiar predicament of possessing large revenues, whilst a majority of the people belonged to a faith, the clergy of which had once been the possessors of that opulence. The object of the repealers was to diminish these revenues, while they disclaimed any wish of seeing them bestowed on their own clergy. There were others, at the same time, and those not Irishmen, who, regarding every religious establishment as an evil, considered the property of the church as a fund which might be seized for what they denominated the purposes of the state. It was with this subject that government next dwelt, and in doing so they adopted a middle course—conceding much, but not conceding all that was required of them. The measures which they intended to pursue were unfolded in the commons by Lord Althorp, on the 12th of February. It appeared from his statement that the total revenues of the Irish church were found not to exceed £800,000 per annum. On these funds, he said, it was the intention of ministers, after abolishing first-fruits, to impose a tax varying from five to fifteen per cent. This tax, however, was not to be imposed on clergymen whose livings were under £200 per annum. The larger revenues of the primates, he said, were to be reduced respectively to the amounts of £10,000 and £8000 per annum. The sum thus collected was to be applied under commissioners to the abolition of church-cess; the augmentation of poor livings and building of glebe-houses; the division of unions, and the erection of churches. With respect to the offices of deans and chapters, it was proposed, wherever they were unconnected with the cure of souls, to abolish them altogether, or to unite them to such cure; and with regard to livings, where no duty had been done for the last three years, it was further proposed to suspend the appointment of ministers at the discretion of the commissioners. Ten bishoprics were to be abolished, and the vacated sees were to be annexed to those preserved. With reference to the lands attached to bishoprics the chancellor of the exchequer laid down this principle, namely, that if by the act of parliament to be introduced any new value was given to benefices, that new value not belonging properly to the church might be appropriated to the exigencies of the state. He believed, he said, that £500,000 per annum was the value of all Irish episcopal lands to the lessees or tenants, though the bishops did not receive more than £100,000. By a different mode of granting leases, his lordship showed that a sum of near £3,000,000 might be acquired for the state without any diminution of income to the bishops. His lordship concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the established church in Ireland. The plan thus unfolded by Lord Althorp was calculated to produce hostility from two opposite quarters,—from the conservative opposition, who thought its principles destructive to the Irish church; and from the economists, repealers, and radicals, who thought that it left too much of the church untouched. At the same time it was clear that these different kinds of opposition would not endanger the success of the bill in the commons, as ministers were sure of being joined by one of the parties in resisting any amendment proposed by the other. Moreover, most of the Irish members approved of tire plan so far as it went, although Mr. O’Connell denounced the estimate of the Irish church revenues as “a base delusion,” and the design of government as one which tended to “relieve no grievance except church-cess, not even suspending the war against the poor man’s pig and tenth potato.”

Leave was given to bring in the bill; but it was not brought in before the 1st of March. It was read a first time on the same evening; but the proposal to take the second reading on the 13th was successfully opposed by Sir Robert Peel, Sir R. Inglis, and others, ministers consenting to let it stand for the 14th. On the 14th, when the motion was made for reading the order of the day, Mr. C. Wynn objected that the bill was a tax-bill, and therefore could originate only in a committee of the whole house. This view was combated by Lord Althorp, Mr. Stanley, and the solicitor-general; and supported by Sir Robert Peel, and Messrs. Goulburn and others. The objection was so strong that Lord Althorp found himself under the necessity of discharging the order for the second reading; and, on the suggestion of Sir R. Peel, a select committee was appointed to search for precedents, and report its opinion whether the bill should, according to the rules and orders of the house, originate in a committee of the whole house. This committee reported that the bill was a tax-bill; and in consequence of this decision Lord Althorp, on the 1st of April, moved three resolutions with reference to the Irish church in a committee of the whole house. These resolutions having been agreed to, the bill relating thereto, which was a counterpart of the former, was read a first time. The second reading was fixed for the 6th of May, on which day Mr. Shaw met the motion with an amendment that it should be read that day six months. He opposed the bill, he said, because it would violate the rights of property, and because it tended to lower the character of the clergy. If property so fenced by acts of parliament, as church property was, could be assailed, he asked, what species of property could be safe? He admitted that it was desirable to change the system of church-cess; the Irish clergy themselves would not have objected to a proper remedy for this; but he would have sought a substitute for it in the reduction of the incomes of the bishops, and not in the diminution of their number. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Estcourt, one of the members for the University of Oxford, who thought that where the principles of the bill were not mischievous, as involving the first example of a confiscation of property, they were fallacious in the results which it was promised they would produce. Sir Robert Peel said that he approved of many parts of the bill—as that part which required that the spiritual duties of the clergy should be personally discharged, and of that which provided for the abolition of the church-cess. At the same time there were other parts of the bill, he said, which he disliked. Lord Althorp and Messrs. Stanley and Grant maintained that there was no ground for denying the right of parliament to interfere with the church property; and argued with regard to the diminution in the number of bishops, that the bill did not suppress bishoprics, but only consolidated them. The second reading of the bill was carried by three hundred and seventeen to seventy-eight. Before the house went into committee, Mr. Gillon moved an instruction to the committee, that the bill should contain certain provisions for resuming all the temporalities of the Irish church, and applying them after the demise of the present incumbents to purposes of general utility; but this motion was at once negatived. The reduction of the number of bishops was strongly opposed by the committee; but the clause was nevertheless carried. The most important discussion arose on that part of the measure which took £3,000,000 from the church to apply it to state purposes. Both the conservative and radical party were opposed to this; and though there could be no doubt that ministers would be able to carry the clause through the commons, they had ascertained that it would certainly be rejected by the lords. On these grounds, when the house came to that clause, Mr. Stanley moved that it should be omitted. He remarked:—“I am well aware that a strong feeling exists against the alienation of church property, and therefore I propose that the sum alluded to should be paid into, the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners, to be applied to the same purposes as the other with which they are entrusted.” Mr. O’Connell immediately attacked government in a strain of unmeasured reproach. Many other members also contended that ministers, by relinquishing this cause, had degraded themselves in the eyes of the country, and that, if the house was to have tory measures, it ought to have them under a tory ministry. But although many of the supporters of the ministers deserted them from this cause, yet the omission of the clause was carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty against one hundred and forty-eight. In the committee, also, it was agreed that beneficed clergymen in present possession of their livings were to be exempted from the graduated tax: it was only to affect their successors. On the third reading of the bill, Mr. Shiel moved the insertion in the preamble of the following words:—“That whereas the property in the possession of the established church of Ireland is under the control of the legislature, and is applicable to such purposes as may be deemed most fitting for the best interests of the community at large, due regard being paid to the rights of all parties interested.” A long discussion took place on this motion, in which old arguments were repeated, and on a division it was rejected. The bill was read a third time on the 8th of July, by a majority of two hundred and ninety-seven against ninety-four.

It was in the upper house, however, that the bill was exposed to the greatest danger, since there existed among the peers a majority capable of defeating ministers on any occasion which they might consider expedient. It was read a first time in that house _pro forma_, and the second reading was fixed for the 17th of July. In the meantime, the commons, aware of the danger to which the bill was exposed, were on the alert. On the 15th of July Sir J. Wrottesly proposed a call of the house of commons, to promote its success as that of the reform bill had been ensured, namely, by putting the members under arms, as it were, at the critical point of its progress. Ministers deprecated the motion as tending to embarrass the administration, and defeat the very end for which it was proposed. At the same time they declared that their official existence would depend on the success of the bill. The motion was pressed to a division; but it was lost by a majority of one hundred and sixty to one hundred and twenty-five. The debate on the second reading of the bill in the upper house was continued by adjournment on the 17th, 18th, and 19th of July, it being strongly opposed by many of the bishops and peers. After an animated discussion, however, the second reading was carried by one hundred and fifty-seven votes against ninety-eight. In the committee it was proposed by the Duke of Wellington, that instead of all the three civil commissioners being named by the crown, one of them should be named by the head of the church, one by the primate of Ireland, and one by the archbishop of Dublin. Ministers conceded this point; but they successfully resisted another, moved by the Earl of Wicklow, to the effect that the appointment of the four bishops to the board of commissioners should be vested in the bench of Irish bishops. They also successfully resisted an amendment moved by Lord Gage, that the clause imposing the tax should be extended to lay-impropriators as well as clerical. A proposal was next made that the ten bishoprics should not be immediately abolished, but that as they became vacant the crown, if so minded, might grant them to be held in _commendam_ with the see to which the bill proposed to unite them, while it should have power at the same time to grant their revenues to the commissioners. Earl Grey declared that if this amendment were carried it would be fatal to the bill; and it was lost, though only by a majority of fourteen, seventy-six voting for it, and ninety against it. Lord Wharncliffe then moved that the produce of tax imposed upon the clergy should be appropriated to the augmentation of small livings, and that the commissioners should not have power to apply it to other purposes for which parish cess was levied. This amendment was lost by a majority of twenty; but ministers were left in a minority of two, on the clause empowering the commissioners to suspend appointments to benefices in which divine service had not been performed during three years before the 1st of February, 1833. An amendment was agreed to, that in all such cases the bishop of the diocese in which the benefice might be situated, should be entitled to act as a member of the board; and that the revenues of the suspended benefice should be applied to the building or repairing of the church or glebe-house in such benefice; or if they should not require it, that then the revenues should be paid into the general fund, under the management of the commissioners. On this defeat Earl Grey adjourned the committee, in order to allow time for considering whether ministers ought not to throw up the bill and resign. On the next day, however, his lordship stated that they had resolved to proceed with the bill; the effect of the amendment would be far from an improvement to the bill, but he did not deem it such an alteration, affecting the general efficiency of the measure, as would justify him in abandoning the duty he had imposed upon himself of conducting it through the house. At the same time, he said, he would not disguise from their lordships that he laboured under deep sensations of difficulty and embarrassment in consequence of the vote; and he felt that if any further alterations of the like nature should be made, it would be for him to consider how far it would be possible for him, consistently with his duty to his sovereign and his country, to continue the conduct of the measure. Some further alterations were admitted on the bringing up of the report. One of these went to guard against the future contingency of the lord-chancellor and lord-chief-justice of Ireland, members of the board, being Catholics; and another placed at the disposal of the two archbishops ten livings, not exceeding £800 a-year each, connected with the suppressed bishoprics, for the purpose of being bestowed on the junior fellows of the University of Dublin. The bill was passed on the 30th of July, by a majority of one hundred and thirty-five against eighty-one; and on the 2nd of August the commons agreed to the amendments which had been made by the peers. Mr. O’Connell observed that the lords had not made the bill much worse than they found it, and protested against its being considered in any other light than as the first instalment of the debt due to Ireland.

IRISH TITHE BILL.

Another measure connected with Ireland arose from the difficulty of collecting tithes. It has been seen that in the preceding year an act was passed, enabling government to advance to the Irish clergy such amount of tithes as had been illegally withheld during the year 1833, and empowered the executive, on making such advance, to levy the arrear itself. This expedient only inflamed the animosity of the tithe-payers, since it created a creditor whom it was apprehended would be more difficult to resist. Ministers, therefore, resolved to relinquish this plan; and they proposed instead of it that government should be empowered to abandon all processes under the existing law, to pay up all arrears, and to seek reimbursement in a different manner. On the 12th of June Lord Althorp moved that it was the opinion of this committee that an advance of money should be paid to the clergy of the established church in Ireland, in order to relieve the occupying tenants from payments on account of arrears of tithes, or composition of tithes in the year 1833, such advance to be paid within a limited time by a land-tax chargeable on all land liable to the payment of tithes, the owners of which should not have paid the tithes, or composition of tithes, which became due during such years. This was generally approved of by O’Connell and the Irish members, though they insisted that it should be extended to lay-impropriators as well as clerical. There were others who opposed it because they thought it would be holding out a premium to lawless violence, and an invitation to resistance to the payment of tithes. Moreover, a third party were for rejecting it, because instead of involving the principle that the Catholic population should not be taxed in any shape for the Protestant church, it seemed to contemplate the perpetuation of the impost. In accordance with the expressed opinion of the committee, a resolution was moved to the effect:—“That his majesty be enabled to direct exchequer-bills to an amount not exceeding £1,000,000 to be issued, for the purpose of advancing, under certain conditions, the arrears of tithes due for 1831 and 1832, subject to a deduction of 25 per cent., and the value of tithes for 1833, subject to a deduction of 15 per cent., to such persons as may be entitled to such arrears on such tithes, and as may be desirous of receiving such advances; and that the amount advanced shall be included in the tithe-composition, so as to be repaid in the course of five years, being payable by half-yearly instalments.” This plan was strongly opposed, principally on the ground that the money would never be repaid, since repayment was still to depend on a collection of tithe, which never would succeed. The pretended loan would be converted into a gift, and England, besides paying its own tithes, would also be paying those of Ireland. The resolution was carried by eighty-seven to fifty-one, and a bill founded on it was brought in and passed both houses without any important alteration. The measure was regarded by the Conservatives as a mischievous precedent, and they asserted that any existing necessity for it had been produced by ministers’ own misgovernment.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

The budget was opened on the 1st of April. As this was the first occasion of bringing any financial statement before a reformed parliament, the chancellor of the exchequer said that he thought it right to state what progress had been made in redeeming that pledge of economy on which the administration had taken office. In the number of places abolished, he showed that there had been a saving effected of £192,000, and he said that the diplomatic expenses had been reduced by £91,735. A saving of £28,000 had also been effected by bringing a number of persons from the retired list in the revenue department, and placing them on active service. The state of the finances was more satisfactory than during the last session. The chancellor of the exchequer stated that the amount of the income and expenditure of the year was respectively £46,853,000 and £45,366, leaving an excess of income over expenditure of £1,487,000, an excess which would be more than sufficient to cover the deficiency of £1,240,412 of the preceding year. He estimated the revenue for the present year at £46,494,128, and the expenditure at £44,922,219, which would leave a surplus of about £1,572,000. He thought it desirable, he continued, that a reduction of taxes should be made to the extent of this surplus. He proposed to make the reductions on taxes chiefly which fell on industry; and he selected tiles, marine insurance, advertisements, the assessed taxes, cotton, and soap, as the taxes to be reduced. The estimated loss to the revenue by these reductions was £1,056,000, which would leave a surplus for the year, after the above reductions, of £516,000. Mr. Hume thought the reductions were neither sufficiently great nor sufficiently numerous; they ought to be pushed at least to the extent of the estimated surplus. On the contrary, Sir Robert Peel was disposed to think that the chancellor of the exchequer had carried reduction too far: it was dangerous, he said, to reduce taxes to such an extent as might affect our ability to keep faith with the public creditor. He concurred, however, in the general view the noble lord had taken of the subject: he had acted wisely in maintaining the system of taxation as it stood at present. The financial statements of the chancellor of the exchequer appear to have given general satisfaction, for there was no discussion on the details.

BANK OF ENGLAND CHARTER RENEWED.

On the 31st of May Lord Althorp brought the subject of the renewal of the Bank of England charter before the commons. In doing so he stated at great length the terms on which government had determined to consent to a renewal of that charter; after which he laid the following-resolutions on the table of the house, that they might be considered:—“That it is the opinion of the committee, that it is expedient to continue to the Bank of England, for a limited period, the enjoyment of certain privileges now vested in law in that corporation, subject to provisions to be hereafter made: That provided the Bank of England continued liable, as at present, to defray, in the current coin of the realm, all its existing engagements, it was expedient that its promissory note should be constituted a legal tender for sums of £5 and upward: That one-fourth part of the debt at present due by the public to the Bank be repaid during the present session of parliament: That the allowances to the Bank on the management of the national debt, and other public business be continued, subject to an annual deduction of £120,000 from the remuneration at present assigned for that purpose: That the laws restricting the interest of money to five per cent, be repealed, so far as concerned bills not having more than three months to run before they become due: That it is expedient that royal charters be granted for the establishment of joint-stock banks, within a certain distance from London: That all banks should enter into a composition, in lieu of stamp-duties, at present chargeable at the rate of seven shillings for every one hundred pounds issued in notes: That it is expedient that a bill should be introduced into parliament to regulate country banks, the provisions of which should be such as to encourage joint-stock banking companies in the country to issue the notes of the Bank of England.” These resolutions were moved on the 1st of June, and the first of them was met by an amendment to the effect of delaying the consideration of the measure till the ensuing session. The opposition proceeded principally from members hostile to the renewal of the privileges of the Bank; and to that hostility they now added objections to particular parts of the proposed plan. They demanded delay in order that there might be more full inquiry, and they contended that such inquiry would make it manifest, that the exclusive privileges of the Bank ought not to be renewed. The amendment, however, was lost by three hundred and sixteen to eighty-three, and the first resolution, affirming the propriety of continuing the privileges of the Bank was agreed to without a division. The second resolution, making the notes of the Bank of England a legal tender for sums of £5 and upwards was opposed still more energetically, as being both unnecessary and mischievous; but it was carried by a majority of fifty-eight. Lord Althorp, however, agreed so far to modify the proposal as to make it incumbent to pay all £5 notes in gold, if demanded. To the resolution which provided for the continuance of remuneration, a counter resolution was moved, to the effect that it was, in the opinion of the committee, expedient that the remuneration now insured by law to the Bank of England for the management of the public debt and other public business should cease; but this was also lost by a large majority. The sixth and eighth resolutions, which went to regulate the establishment of joint-stock banking companies were abandoned for the present, Lord Althorp conceiving that the opposition was so strong that he should not be able to carry them, at least during this session. A bill founded on these resolutions was brought in and read the first and second time without a division. On the motion for going into the committee, Mr. Gisborne moved as an amendment that the committee should be taken that day six months; but this was lost by a majority of one hundred and nineteen against forty. In the committee multifarious amendments were proposed, but without success. One alteration, however, was made by ministers themselves. They had believed that the existing law prohibited deposit-banks, no less than banks of issue, consisting of more than six partners, from being established in the metropolis, or within a short distance of it; but the solicitor-general had now satisfied himself that, as the law stood, no such restriction existed, and a clause was introduced declaring such to be, and to have been the law, although there were legal opinions the other way, and although the Bank, and all mercantile men, had acted on the belief that the restriction did exist. As the bill passed the commons, its chief provisions were, a monthly publication of the Bank accounts; the repayment of a portion of its capital; a partial repeal of the usury laws which impeded its action; an annual payment of £120,000 in return for privileges conceded; its notes made a legal tender except at the Bank itself, or its branches; a quarterly return of the amount of circulation of all other banks; and certain regulations for the improvement of joint-stock banks. The bill passed the upper house without alterations: an amendment moved by Lord Whynford to leave out the declaratory clause regarding deposit-banks, as being contrary to law, mercantile understanding, and good faith, having been rejected. Government, also, refused to allow the opinion of the judges to be taken regarding the legality of such companies under the existing law.

EAST INDIA QUESTION.