Chapter XLIV: {william IV. 1834} (2)

On the second reading of the bill in the lords, the peers were given to understand by Lord Melbourne that, if it was lost, government would propose no other grant to relieve the Irish clergy. He admitted, he said, that there might be reason for viewing with jealousy and distrust the quarter whence certain alterations made in the bill, subsequently to this introduction, proceeded; but, at the same time he did not think the arrangement bad for the church. The tithe for the future was to be received by the crown, and paid by the landlord, who, in return for the burden thus imposed on him, was to have a deduction of two-fifths or forty per cent, of the original composition. The incomes of the clergy, however, were not to bear the whole deduction, which was only to be twenty-two and a half per cent, on them; that is, twenty per cent, for increased security, and two and a half per cent, for the expenses of collection. The incumbents would, in fact, receive £79 10s. for every £100 without trouble, without the risk of bad debts, and without the odium which had hitherto attended the collection of tithe property. Another consequence was that the clergy would be relieved from the payment of sums already advanced to them from the treasury, as that charge would be laid on the landlord. In conclusion, he said that he thought the revision of existing compositions, made under the acts of 1823 and ‘32, was also a proper enactment. The bill underwent a complete discussion—the Conservatives seeing no security for the rights and interests of the Irish clergy in its provisions as now altered; while their opponents thought that it would be much more advantageous to the clerical body to obtain the sum proposed without risk, than to recover a smaller—if they recovered any at all—through scenes of blood and slaughter. The Earl of Ripon and the Duke of Richmond pursued a middle course—they wished the bill to go into committee in order to restore it to its original state; if unsuccessful there, they would vote against the third reading. The lords, however, were determined to reject it forthwith; and on a division the bill was thrown out by a majority of one hundred and eighty-nine against one hundred and twenty-two. By the rejection of the bill, the Irish clergy was thrown on the charity of the British public, who liberally responded to their demand: a large subscription was made to relieve their distresses.

STATE OF ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTIONS AND THE CLAIMS OF DISSENTERS.

It was not the Catholics alone who regarded the Protestant establishment with a jealous eye; there were discontents and heart-burnings, also, among dissenters. The great majority of the people of England adhered to the established church, yet the dissenters formed a numerous body, possessing in many instances great respectability, wealth, and influence. As a body they were impressed with the idea that, by the church being supported as a national institution, they were stamped with a mark of inferiority. Acting upon this impression, they very naturally employed the power with which they were now invested to bring down the established church to the same level on which they themselves stood; to annihilate all the rights, powers, and privileges which belonged to its members; and, by depriving it of all support from the funds of the state, convert it into a self-constituted religious community. Their great objects were to obtain those privileges from which they were excluded, and to be relieved from the necessity of supporting an establishment in the advantages of which they did not participate. The occasion was favourable for the enterprise, in consequence of the unsettled and uncertain state in which things stood, and the hopes held out by a ministry who seemed disposed to make concessions to all classes of men if they were but importunate. In accordance with their views, various petitions were presented by them to parliament in the beginning of the session, praying to be relieved from church-rates; and in many instances urging the separation of church and state, or recommending the general establishment of the voluntary system. These petitions, however, led to no other result but that of producing a strong expression of opposite opinions, and calling forth numerous anti-petitions, praying parliament to preserve the church inviolate. Ministers declared that they would listen to no proposition for its destruction; but, notwithstanding this, a motion was made by Mr. Rippon, the new member for Gateshead, to expel the bishops from the house of lords. This motion was seconded by Mr. Gillon, a Scotch member; but on a division it was lost by a majority of one hundred and twenty-five against fifty-eight. The minority seems to have been much larger than had been anticipated, for the announcement was hailed with loud cheers.

Among the grievances of which the dissenters complained in their numerous petitions, none were more forcibly insisted on than their practical exclusion from degrees at Oxford and Cambridge, in consequence of its being required, as a preliminary, that they should conform to the church of England, or to subscribe to her articles. As a matter of civil right, they demanded that all religious tests should be abolished, and the universities thrown open for the education and graduation of men of all creeds. Exertions were made by them to get up petitions from the universities, and in one of them they succeeded. On the 21st of March Earl Grey presented, in the house of lords, a petition from certain members of the senate of the University of Cambridge, praying for the abolition by legislative authority of every religious test exacted from members of the university before they proceed to degrees, whether of bachelor, master, or doctor, in arts, law, and physic. On this occasion, as on others when similar petitions were presented, there was much incidental discussion of the merits of the demand. Ministers declared it to be just and proper, and showed an inclination to grant it; but no distinct motion was made on the subject till after the Easter recess. On the 17th of April, however, Colonel Williams moved an address to the king, “requesting his majesty to signify his pleasure to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, that these bodies no longer act under the edicts or letters of James I., 1616; by which he would have all who take any degree in schools to subscribe to the three articles’ of the thirty-sixth canon, with the exception of those proceeding to degrees in divinity; nor to require the declaration, namely, ‘that I am _bona fide_ a member of the church of England,’ nor any subscription or declaration of like effect and import.” It was, however, thought for many reasons more advisable to proceed by bill; and Mr. Wood, one of the members for Preston, moved as an amendment for leave to bring in a bill to grant to his majesty’s subjects, generally, the right of admission to the English universities, and to equal eligibility to degrees therein, notwithstanding their diversities of religious opinion, degrees in divinity alone excepted. The address was withdrawn; and after a discussion, in which even the introduction of the measure was opposed by Messrs. Goulburn and Estcourt, and Sir R. Inglis, three of the four members for the universities, it was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-five to forty-four. Although the Cambridge petition had been presented in both houses by members of the cabinet, and government had declared its entire concurrence in the prayer of the petitioners, neither the proposition for an address, nor that for a bill, was brought forward by ministers. They were favourable to the measure, however, and supported it by their speeches and votes. At the same time they wished that neither parliament nor the government should be pressed or hurried to intermeddle, before they could take up the matter with the prospect of terminating it in the best and most satisfactory manner. They hoped, they said, that as a portion of one of the universities was already inclined to it, the object, by allowing some time for consideration, might be effected with the concurrence of those learned bodies, and in a much better form, and to much better purpose, than if they were made reluctantly to act under the compulsion of a statute. That hope, however, was vain. Before the bill was brought in, the sentiments of the great mass in the two universities were fully expressed. It was soon discovered that the sixty-three petitioners at Cambridge, by offending the honest principles of many, and the party-spirit of others, had raised a storm which no argument or explanation could allay. Meetings were almost daily held, pamphlets were distributed on every hand, the public press joined in the contest, and the university pulpits resounded with the most awful denunciations. During the excitement at Cambridge, a counter-petition was signed by two hundred and fifty-eight members, resident and non-resident, comprising eleven heads of houses, eight professors, and twenty-nine tutors; while a second was signed by seven hundred and fifty-five under-graduates and bachelors of arts. These were presented on the 21st of April by the Duke of Gloucester in the lords, as chancellor of the university, and by Mr. Goulburn in the commons, as one of its representatives. A similar document was presented from the university of Oxford by Mr. Estcourt, and on the 9th of May a second petition was sent from Cambridge, signed by one thousand members of the senate who had not signed the other.

Although Mr. Wood brought his bill into the house soon after the Easter holidays, it was not till the 20th of June that he was enabled to move the second reading. Mr. Estcourt proposed as an amendment that it should be read that day six months. Mr. Herbert seconded the amendment. Messrs. Paten, Poulter, and Ewart spoke in favour of the bill, contending that the alteration was necessary, no less for the benefit of the universities, than in justice to the dissenters. By the present system the latter were impeded in their progress to the bar, by having to keep terms for five years instead of three; and were prevented from becoming fellows of the college of physicians, for want of academical degrees. These were positive and weighty grievances, which ought, it was urged, to be remedied. Mr. Spring Rice complained that it was unfair to treat the bill, not according to its own deserts, but according to measures which might or might not be immediately connected with that now under discussion. He asked what could be more inconsistently unjust than the practice of Cambridge, where dissenters were admitted so far as instruction was concerned, but then excluded from everything to which instruction ought to lead? They were admitted to the fullest and most complete course of study until the twelfth term, when, on being brought into fair competition with their fellow-students, the odious principle of exclusion intervened: the dissenter was told that, however obedient he had been to college regulations, however high the eminence he had acquired, still he would not be allowed the badge or symbol of his acquirements, simply because he was a dissenter. The house, indeed, had the benefit of experience; for in Dublin dissenters were admitted to degrees, though excluded from fellowships, and all participation in the internal management of the university. And what mighty mischiefs, he asked, had followed the admission? Was the university less orthodox in its principles? or less a Protestant foundation than before? Had the zeal of its public instructors been lessened, or their sphere of usefulness narrowed by this interference? It should be remembered that those on whom the exclusions fell were men of active and stirring spirits, men who would excite and probably guide the councils of those with whom they agreed in opinion. It had been said that the dissenters ought to found universities of their own. He concurred in that argument; but the English universities would not allow them to do this. When they proposed such a step, in order to educate the youth of their own persuasion, and reward them with those honours which the university denied, and thus sought to secure to themselves academical honours and privileges, the universities stepped forward and said:—“We will not only exclude you from our own seats, but will also prevent you from enjoying the advantages and privileges of a university of your own.” This double ground of exclusion and prohibition was most undefensible. The colonial secretary was answered by Mr. Goulburn, who argued that in proportion as the friends of the bill enforced the danger of excluding dissenters, they rendered manifest the ruinous consequences of concession. If the dissenters really deemed it so great a hardship to be deprived of the empty honour of a degree, what would they say, if they were admitted to degrees, and found a bar raised against their admission to college emoluments and distinctions? Sir Robert Peel characterised the bill as an enactment intended to give to Jews, infidels, and atheists—to the man who professed some religion, and to the man who professed none—a statutable right of demanding admission into our universities. Sir E. Inglis and Lord Sandon opposed the bill, contending that it was impossible to establish any system of religious education in institutions into which persons professing different religious opinions were admitted. Lord Althorp, on the other hand, supported the bill, disclaiming at the same time any hostility to the established church. On a division the second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-one against one hundred and seventy-four. In the committee the speaker gave his decided opposition to the bill; and some amendments having been made, it was read a third time, and passed by a majority of one hundred and sixty-four against seventy-five. The bill was conducted in the lords by the Earl of Radnor, who moved the second reading on the 1st of August. The Duke of Gloucester, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, denounced the bill as being not only uncalled for, but most unjust and mischievous. His royal highness concluded by moving as an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. He was followed by the Duke of Wellington, Chancellor of the University of Oxford, who sustained the same view of the question. The Earl of Carnarvon spoke against the bill; the Archbishop of Canterbury maintained the same side. Lord Melbourne admitted that the subject was surrounded with difficulties; that he did not altogether approve of the bill; but, notwithstanding this, the question being brought before the house, he would vote for the second reading of the bill, because he thought a question of such magnitude and importance was entitled to the fullest and most anxious consideration. Lord-chancellor Brougham supported the bill, because he thought it went to remove a practical grievance, without affecting the discipline of the universities or the safety of the church. The discussion was closed by the Bishop of Exeter, who, in a long and ingenious speech, opposed the bill in all its bearings. On a division, the amendment to reject the bill was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-seven against eighty-five.

Another grievance of which the dissenters complained was, that they were liable to church-rates—that is, they were taxed towards the expenses of the established church. On the 21st of April Lord Althorp brought forward his plan for the mitigation of this evil in the shape of a resolution: “that, after a fixed time, church-rates should cease and determine; and, in lieu thereof, a sum not exceeding £250,000 should be granted from the land-tax to be applied to the expenses of the fabrics of churches and chapels in such manner as parliament should direct.” He said that his intention was not merely to relieve dissenters, but likewise to provide for the fabrics of the church. This plan, however, did not suit the views of either churchmen or dissenters. The friends of the dissenters, indeed, immediately attacked it with unmeasured violence. Mr. Hume moved that all the words in the resolution should be expunged, except those which declared “that church-rates should cease and determine.” The proposal, it was said, was a contemptible juggle, founded on the old financial principle that if money were taken out of the pockets of the people by indirect means, they would not be sensible of their loss. On the other hand, the friends of the church objected to the plan because it questioned the rights of the church, infringed on some of them, and left others on a foundation less sure than before; and all this without any reason in principle, and confessedly without any good result in practice. Lord Althorp, in his reply, expressed much surprise that the dissenters should receive the proposition so ungraciously; but expressed his determination to persevere in bringing it forward. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and fifty-six against one hundred and forty; but notwithstanding this majority, and the certainty of ultimate success, ministers proceeded no further with the measure. Churchmen considered that one advantage was gained, in the dissenters having been brought to disclose somewhat prematurely the real purposes which they had in view, and to proclaim opinions tending to the complete abolition of a religious establishment. Government were equally unfortunate in another attempt to gratify the dissenters, by allowing them to celebrate the marriage ceremony in their own chapels, and thus escape what was deemed by them a grievous oppression.

The commutation of tithes in England was a subject still more complicated and difficult. It in fact involved so many interests of different kinds, and so many details requiring minute attention, that the adjustment of the question was a work requiring both time, patience, and circumspection. Lord Althorp brought forward the ministerial plan on the 15th of April, and it was contained in the following resolution:—“That it was expedient that the payment of tithes in kind should cease and determine, and that in the several parishes throughout England and Wales there should be substituted in lieu thereof a payment to the parties who might be entitled to such tithe, such payment bearing a fixed proportion to the annual value of all land whence tithe might be payable, that value to be ascertained throughout the several counties at large, striking an average on the parishes in each county; also that all owners of property liable to tithe be at liberty to redeem the same at the rate of twenty-five years’ purchase.” Lord Althorp then proceeded to develop his plan at great length; but its principles and details were so strongly objected to both by landlords and the clergy that the measure was dropped for the present. Lord Althorp stated as a reason for not going on with it, that he saw, from the state of the public business, and the time which would require to be devoted to the more urgent question of the amendment of the poor-laws, that there was no probability of its being brought to a successful issue before the termination of the session.

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

One act was carried this session, which, in itself, is sufficient to signalise the administration under whose auspices it was brought forward. Soon after their accession to office the present ministry had issued a commission of inquiry into the state and operation of the poor laws. The inquiries of the commission were to be directed towards ascertaining what was the cause why, in some parts of the country, the poor-laws were considered a benefit by parishes, while in others their operation had been ruinous and destructive. The commissioners had made their report, and an abstract of the evidence which they had taken had been printed in the course of the preceding session. Government was so strongly impressed by that report, with a conviction of the evils produced by the system in many districts of the country, that they resolved to propose a remedy to parliament. On the 17th of April, therefore, Lord Althorp moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the poor. The necessity of interference was maintained on the ground that the present administration of those laws tended directly and indirectly to the destruction of all property, whilst their continued operation was fatal even to the labouring classes whom they had been intended to benefit. It was the abuse of the system, rather than the system itself, which was to be apprehended. Its worst abuses, indeed, were scarcely older than the beginning of the present century, and they had originated in measures intended for the benefit of that class of the community to whose interests and welfare they were now most destructively opposed. A feeling at that period prevailed that great discontent existed among the working classes, and a principle was then adopted in legislation, which, though humane and well intended, was found to produce the most baneful consequences. The 36th of George III. laid down the principle that the relief to paupers ought to be given in such a manner as to place them in a situation of comfort. It might have been desirable to place all our countrymen in this situation; but to give relief in the manner prescribed by this statute was rather the duty of private charity than of the public legislature. The effect of this law had been to give the magistrates the power of ordering relief to the poor in their own dwellings, and the principle being followed up, led from bad to worse, until every spark of independence in the breast of the peasantry had been nearly extinguished. The parish must keep them, it was often said; and they did not care to obtain an honest livelihood by the sweat of their brow. The existing state of things had indeed reduced the labouring population in many districts to a state of deplorable misery and distress. It was evident that there were great dangers to be incurred if matters were left as they stood, and that it was absolutely necessary to adopt sounder principles, and to carry them into execution unflinchingly. In fact, there were examples already to be followed. In about one hundred parishes the evils of the system had compelled the inhabitants to adopt an approved mode of administration, and in every instance they had succeeded, although some of them had been completely pauperised. Where, again, the former system still prevailed, cultivation had been abandoned; so heavy was the pressure of rates, and so great the evils of mismanagement. The consequence of this was that the neighbouring parishes were compelled to support the poor; and it was evident that they also would soon be reduced to a similar situation if the system was not soon and effectually altered. It was on the grounds of this mischief, and the necessity of checking it, that Lord Althorp defended the principle of entrusting the poor-laws to a board of commissioners. He admitted that this was an anomalous course of legislation, and that the board would be entrusted with extraordinary powers. This, however, he argued, was rendered unavoidable by the necessity of the case; a discretionary power must be vested somewhere, in order to carry into effect the better principles to be introduced. But before extending any discretionary power, he continued, it would be necessary to fix a day on which the allowance system should cease; and in the bill it would be fixed in some of the summer months, when the labourers were in full employment. The allowance system, he said, was the foundation of almost all other evils; and until it was abolished, any attempt at amending the poor-laws would be nugatory.

The allowance system being abolished, and the central board established, next came the powers of the commissioners. He proposed one uniform system operating over the whole country, in order to obtain which they were to have power to make general rules and orders as to the mode of relief, and for the regulation of workhouses, and the mode of relief afforded therein. As a check against any abuse, every such rule, order, or regulation so proposed by the commissioners would be submitted to the secretary-of-state: forty days were to elapse before it could be brought into operation, and during that period it should be competent, by an order in council, issued for that purpose, to prevent it from being carried into effect. The commissioners would further have power, he said, to make specific rules and orders for the regulation and mode of relief of the poor in separate districts and parishes: to form unions of parishes, in order to make larger districts; to arrange classifications of the poor in the same or different workhouses; to exercise a general control in such unions as might be established without their consent; and to dissolve unions which might now exist. Unions having been formed, each parish in the union would have to maintain its own poor, or contribute to the general fund the proportion of expense which it had hitherto borne by itself. The commissioners would likewise have power to call the attention of parishes and unions to the state of their workhouse establishments, and to suggest to them the propriety of adding to those formed, or of building separate and distinct establishments. Another fertile source of mischief had been the practice of ordering relief to the poor in their own houses. The bill would provide that justices should have no power for the future, thus bringing back the law to the state in which it had been previous to the year 1796. Other features of the bill, he explained, consisted in simplifying the law of settlement and removal; in rendering the mother of an illegitimate child liable for its support, and, for its ailment, to save from imprisonment the putative father to whom she might swear it. The great principles of the proposed plan, therefore, went to stop the allowance system; to deprive the magistracy of the power of ordering out-door relief; to alter, in certain cases, the constitution of parochial vestries; to give large discretionary powers to the commissioners; to simplify the law of settlement and removal; and to render the mother of an illegitimate child liable for its support. The bill by which these principles were to be carried into effect having been brought in, the second reading was opposed by Colonel Evans, one of the members for Westminster, and Sir S. Whalley, one of the members for Marylebone. The latter moved an amendment, that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. It was his opinion, he said, that the bastardy clause, which threw all the burden on the mother, on whom the odium rested already, thus held out a premium to immorality and an inducement to infanticide; and the clauses which effected the law of settlement would of themselves justify the house in throwing out the bill. His great objection, however, was to the board of commissioners. The board was unnecessary, for the principal existing defect consisted in the ratepayers not having sufficient control over the expenditure. If they were only vested with complete control over the poor-law management, the evils of the present system would soon disappear. He doubted whether the house had authority to give powers of the description proposed to any set of men—at all events it was impolitic. The bashaws whom the bill proposed to start into life would be omnipotent; they might do as they pleased, and account for their acts by merely stating it was their pleasure. There were to be no less than thirty-six discretionary powers vested in the commissioners; a degree of authority entrusted to three men of which the country afforded no parallel. Government ought to wait before they undertook any poor-law reform: the report of the commissioners had already led to the correction of many abuses, and time only was required to secure a trial to the greater part, if not all, of the recommendations that report contained. The amendment was seconded by Alderman Wood, and supported by Mr. Walter, a reforming representative of Berkshire. Messrs. Grote and Hume, and Sirs J. Scarlett and Francis Burdett, with other members who spoke on the occasion, all agreed that there was no good reason against the second reading of the bill, though none of them approved it as a whole. The chancellor of the exchequer argued in reply, that nothing had been stated which could be regarded as an ostensible reason for not going into committee; and that when in committee all matters which had been noticed would be open to consideration. The second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and nineteen to twenty. In the committee a discussion took place as regarded the effect of the bill in establishing workhouses, a system which some members disliked; but the clause was retained. Another discussion also took place on the clause which allowed occupiers and owners to vote in vestries, the latter having accumulative votes proportioned to their property. It was objected to as being inconsistent with popular rights and good management; but it was nevertheless retained. The forty-fifth clause provided that it should be lawful for the commissioners, by such orders or regulations as they should think fit, to declare to what extent the relief to be given might be administered out of the workhouse. An amendment was moved, “that no rule or order of the commissioners shall prohibit the guardians of unions from giving relief out of the workhouse, to such of their sick or impotent poor, and to such widows, orphans, and illegitimate children, as they may think fit so to relieve.” This amendment, however, was only supported by forty, while one hundred and forty-eight voted against it. In the clauses regarding settlement, settlement by having occupied a tenement, and having been assessed to the poor-rates for one year, and having paid such assessment, was added to settlement by birth and marriage.

The clauses which laid the burden of supporting an illegitimate child on the mother, as if she had been a widow, gave rise to much discussion. Mr. Robinson moved that they should be omitted, he objecting to them chiefly on the ground that they removed the liability from the father. He did not object, he said, to so much of them as repealed certain acts affecting the mother, but to that part which let the father go free. The bill proposed, he said, that in case the woman should be unable to support the child, the liability should rest on the father, or if he were not alive, or being alive and not able to support it, then the liability was to fall on the grandfather or grandmother. Could the house, he asked, seriously entertain propositions of this nature, or consent to pass enactments so contrary to every principle of justice and humanity? Lord Althorp protested against these provisions being discussed as matters of feeling; they should be considered not as they affected one portion of society, but the whole of it; and looking at it in this point of view he was prepared to support this part of the bill as a boon to the female population. He left it as an alternative to the committee, that if this clause was struck out, the bastardy clauses should be wholly severed from the bill, and proceeded with in a future session of parliament. The general feeling in the house seemed to be that the clauses should be struck out, and the matters which they involved made the subject of a separate measure, or that they should be postponed till some middle term should be devised. The majority, however, preferred the latter alternative, and it was decided that the provisions in question should not be expunged. On the 21st of March Mr. Miles proposed a modified clause, which still refused any claim to the mother against the father, and gave no power of demanding security before the child was born; but it exposed him to a claim at the instance of the managers of the poor, in the event of the mother and the child becoming chargeable to the parish. The chancellor of the exchequer said he would have preferred the original provisions of the bill; but he acquiesced in the adoption of the proposed clause, because he saw that the opinion of the house was in its favour. Subsequently clauses were added, disqualifying the commissioners from sitting in parliament; requiring all general orders and regulations to be laid before parliament; and limiting the operation of the act, in so far as regarded the commissioners, to five years. The bill was read a third time and passed on the 1st of July. It was introduced to the lords on the day following, and the second reading was fixed for the 8th of July; but in consequence of the resignation of Earl Grey, it was not again brought forward till the 21st of July. The second reading was moved by the lord-chancellor, who, after giving an historical account of the progress of the poor-laws, pointed out the manner in which they had become the sources of so much evil. The bill found its most violent opponent in Lord Wynford, who moved as an amendment that it be read that day six months. He did not oppose it, he said, on the ground that there was not much in the administration of the poor-laws which required to be corrected, but because he conceived that the remedies proposed by the bill were partly unnecessary and partly inefficient, while some of them were perfectly tyrannical. The Earl of Winchilsea and the Dukes of Richmond and Wellington supported the motion for the second reading, though they did not approve of all the provisions of the bill. The division on the amendment gave seventy-six peers for the second reading, and only thirteen against it. In the committee Lord Alvanley proposed that the bill should be dropped. Lord Wynford urged strong objections to the central board of commissioners, but this was defended by the lord-chancellor, the Earl of Winchilsea, and the Duke of Wellington. The only alteration made in the clauses respecting them and their powers was an addition proposed by the Duke of Wellington, to the effect that they should be bound to keep a record of each letter received, the date of its reception, the person from whom it came, the subject to which it related, and the minute of any answer given to it, or made thereon, and also, where the commissioners differed, of the opinion of each commissioner, and that a copy of such record be transmitted to the secretary-of-state once a year, or oftener if required. The Bishop of Exeter moved to substitute for the leading enactment in reference to bastardy, “That the father and mother of an illegitimate child, or the survivor of them, shall be required to support such child, and that no parish shall be bound to support such child whilst either parent is able to do so, and that all relief occasioned by the wants of such child shall be considered as relief afforded to the father and mother, or the survivor of them.” This amendment, however, was negatived by thirty-eight votes against thirty-four; but the clause itself, being that which the house of commons, on the motion of Mr. Miles, had substituted for the original clause, was likewise rejected. On the third reading the Bishop of Exeter again brought the question before the house, by moving the omission of the clause which provided that any person marrying a woman who had an illegitimate child or children by another man, should be liable to maintain them. The original clause, however, was retained, although by a majority of only eleven, eighty-two voting for and seventy-one against it. Instead of the rejected clause which Mr. Miles had carried in the house of commons, clauses were introduced on the motion of the Duke of Wellington, enacting, that the putative father of any bastard child, so soon as such child became chargeable to the parish by the mother’s inability to maintain it, should be liable to reimburse to the parish the expenses of its maintenance until it attained the age of seven years, on his paternity being proved before the quarter-sessions, but not without the testimony of the woman being corroborated by other evidence; that when a woman had had one bastard child, she should obtain no order in a subsequent case; that an order should be operative only till the child attained the age of seven years; that sums to be recovered from the putative father should be recoverable only by attachment or distress; and that he should not, in any case, be liable to imprisonment for costs. Subsequently, several other amendments were made of minor importance, as alterations in the allowance system, and in administering out-door relief, &c.; and the bill thus altered passed the third reading on the 8th of August, by a majority of forty-five against fifteen. On the 11th of August, when Lord Althorp moved the commons to agree to the lords’ amendment, an amendment was moved that they should be read that day six months. This proposal was chiefly supported by those who were opposed to the bill altogether, or who wished it should be delayed till next session; but Lord Althorp declared that if it did not pass, he would not again bring it forward; and the amendment was negatived by a large majority. All the amendments of the lords were then agreed to, with the exception of the omission of the clause which provided for the instruction of pauper children in the religious creed of his surviving parent or god-parent, and entitled dissenting clergymen to visit workhouses at all times, for the purpose of religious instruction, at the desire of any pauper of any sect. This amendment was said to be a violation of the principle of religious liberty, and an insult to the small portion of good feeling towards dissenters which existed in the upper house, and it was rejected. Finally, the amendment of the commons restoring the clause which had been expunged, was agreed to by the lords, and thus the great experiment of a revision and alteration of the poor-laws commenced.

From the great change effected in the poor-laws, no class of men could eventually expect greater relief than the owners and occupiers of lands. At this time, however, the agriculturists longed after means of relief of more immediate, direct, and certain operation. The subject of agricultural distress had, indeed, formed a paragraph in the king’s speech, and it was now brought forward by the Marquis of Chandos. On the 21st of February, after ably stating both the local and general causes of the evil, he moved a resolution, “That, in any reduction of national burdens by the remission of taxes, due regard be shown to that distress of the agriculturists which had been alluded to in the speech from the throne.” The resolution was supported by Mr. A. Baring, who said, that importunity and clamour, threats of commotion and resistance to the law obtained that which was refused to the patient suffering of the farmer. Several members spoke against the resolution, not meaning to deny that the agriculturists were suffering, but considering the resolution as not likely to lead to any result; and that the means alluded to by those who supported it were neither efficient nor just. Moreover, the supporters of the motion were far from being of one mind as to the manner in which relief ought to be afforded. On a division the resolution was lost by a majority of four only in a very full house. This success induced the noble mover to bring the subject before the house again. On the 7th of July he moved, “That an humble address be presented to his majesty, expressing the deep regret that this house feels at the continuance of the distressed state of the agricultural interests of the country, to which the attention of parliament was especially called in his majesty’s most gracious speech from the throne, and humbly to represent the anxious desire of this house that the attention of his majesty’s government should be directed, without further delay, to this important subject, with a view to the immediate removal of some portion of those burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of general and local taxation.” On a division the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety against one hundred and seventy-four.

On the 17th of March the question of the malt-duty was brought directly before the house by a motion of Mr. Cobbett, that it should cease and determine from and after the 5th of October next. It was rejected by one hundred and forty-two to fifty-nine.

THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

While the agriculturists were thus demanding relief, the corn-laws were not only insisted on as an answer to all complaints by those who maintained a different interest, but were also themselves made the subject of a formal attack. On the 6th of March, Mr. Hume moved, “That this house do resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to consider of the corn-laws, and of substituting, instead of the present graduated scale of duties, a fixed and moderate duty on the import at all times of foreign corn into the United Kingdom, and for granting a fixed and equivalent bounty on the export of corn from the United Kingdom, with the ultimate view of establishing a free trade in corn.” Sir James Graham defended the present system as necessary to prevent the destruction of the farmers, and the annihilation of the occupations of an immense body of agricultural labourers. On the other hand, Lord Morpeth, who was himself connected with the landed interest, Lord Howick, and Mr. Clay, member for the Tower Hamlets, supported the motion, contending that it was the corn-laws which kept the agricultural interest in a state of depression while all other interests were prospering. The Irish members who spoke were adverse to the proposition; the very agitation of the question, it was said, would do much mischief in Ireland, unless the house distinctly declared that there should be no change in the existing law. Lord Althorp said that he would meet the motion with a direct negative, although his opinions were favourable to an alteration of the existing system. In opposition, therefore, to his theoretical opinion, he would resist the motion; and he believed that every cabinet minister would vote against it. There were, however, some of the members of government favourable to a repeal of the corn-laws; and Mr. Thompson, vice-president of the board of trade, supported the motion, and delivered a long speech, principally in answer to Sir James Graham’s. He contended that so far from the existing system conferring any benefit on the corn-growers, the farmers, who had been deluded by it, had more reason to complain of it than any other class in the country. And what, he asked, were the effects on our manufactures of this system which had ruined the farmers? The motion was rejected by three hundred and twelve against one hundred and fifty-five. The subject was again discussed incidentally, on the occasion of the presentation of a petition from Liverpool in favour of free trade, and especially of a free trade in corn. Sir Robert Peel embraced this opportunity of expressing his opinions on the subject—opinions utterly at variance with the enlightened policy adopted by him at a subsequent date. On the other hand, Sir Henry Parnell said that the pretext of farmers being interested in a continuation of the corn-laws was a gross delusion practised on them by the landlords. It was for their advantage alone that the whole community was taxed.

At this time, also, those concerned in the shipping-interest complained loudly of distress, which they considered to be either caused or aggravated by the admission into our ports of the ships of foreign nations on the same terms on which our vessels were admitted into theirs; an admission which the crown had the power of conceding under the fourth of George IV., c. 77, commonly called “the Reciprocity of Duties Act.” Many petitions for the repeal of this act were presented; and on the 5th of June Mr. G. F. Young moved for leave to bring in a bill for that purpose; but the motion was resisted by ministers, and rejected by one hundred and seventeen against fifty-two.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ETC.

Notwithstanding the distress of the country, the financial affairs of the present year exhibited an encouraging aspect. The chancellor of the exchequer indeed, after providing for the interest on the £20,000,000 granted to West India proprietors, had a disposable surplus of £1,620,000. From various alterations about to be made in the state of taxation with respect to spirits and beer, the estimated surplus might be taken at £1,815,000. Under these circumstances, the chancellor of the exchequer made the following reductions in taxation: in the house-tax, which was wholly abolished,£1,200,000; customs,£200,000; starch, £75,000; stone bottles and sweets, £6000; almanacks, £25,000; small assessed taxes, £75,000—leaving still a surplus of about £230,000. But this surplus would be further reduced by a change which was proposed in the spirit duties. The duty on spirits distilled in Ireland had for several years been fixed at the same amount as in Scotland. That policy was now to be departed from, and the duty on Irish spirits was to be reduced from 3s. 4d. to 2s. 4d. per gallon. After a few words from Mr. Baring against the views of the chancellor of the exchequer, the resolutions proposed were adopted by the house. Subsequently, an important measure of finance was attempted in a plan for the reduction of the four per cent, annuities created in 1826. All holders of that stock who should not signify their dissent, were to have, for every £100, three and a half per cent, in a new stock to be consolidated with the existing three and a half per cent, annuities, which were not liable to redemption before January, 1840. The dissentients were found to be a greater number than had been anticipated. Before the 9th of June, nine hundred and sixty-nine had expressed their dissent, and they held stock to the amount of £4,600,000. In order to provide funds for paying off these dissentients, a resolution was passed on the 7th of June, authorising the commissioners of the national debt to pay them out of the monies, stocks, or exchequer-bills which they held under “the savings’ bank act.” The dissented stock was from the tenth of October following to be considered as converted into an equal amount of three and a half per cents., which were to be vested in the commissioners, and placed in the bank-books to the account intituled “funds for the banks of savings.”

BILL FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CIVIL DISABILITIES OF THE JEWS, ETC.

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

During this session Mr. Robert Grant again brought in a bill for removing the civil disabilities of the Jews. The second reading was opposed by Mr. C. Bruce. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The amendment, however, was rejected, and the bill carried through committee by large majorities, and it was read a third time and passed on the 11th of June by fifty votes against fourteen. In the lords, on the second reading, the Earl of Malmsbury moved the amendment that the bill should be read that day six months. The Earl of Winchilsea seconded the amendment. On a division the bill was lost by one hundred and thirty-two against thirty-eight.

The distress felt at this time by all classes of the community was dexterously made use of by the opponents of ministers to render their administration unpopular. They became exposed to great inconvenience from a statutory rule of the constitution, which requires that all members of the house of commons who accept certain offices under the crown shall vacate their seats, and take the chance of a re-election. In more instances than one, the candidate thus stamped with the approbation of government had not been re-elected; and even the attorney-general, having, by his promotion, lost his seat for Dudley, was unable to appear in the house of commons. This was the first practical grievance experienced under the reform act, which had swept away all the close boroughs without any exception, and provided no means to compensate the loss. This state of matters induced Sir Robert Heron, on the 1st of May, to move for leave to bring in a bill to obviate the necessity of members vacating their seats on their accepting certain offices under the crown. Mr. E. L. Bulwer was dissatisfied with the proposition, because it failed to remove the worst clanger of the present system. The principle of the constitution, he said, was not that the people should choose ministers, but that they should have an opportunity of deciding whether or not they wished their representatives to become ministers, and this principle the present measure would destroy. Pie moved, as an amendment, “That, for the convenience of the public service, and the promotion of the public interests, it is desirable that one member of each of the principal departments of state should have a seat in that house, but without the privilege of voting, unless returned by the suffrages of a constituency.” Dr. Lushington and Mr. Ward opposed both these propositions, as taking from the people one of the most valuable privileges given to them by the constitution, merely for the purpose of consulting the convenience and safety of the party now in power. Lord Althorp assured the house that the subject had been introduced without the sanction of government; but, at the same time, he stated that ministers had been put to great inconvenience. On the whole, however, he thought that the time was not yet come when a measure like that should be pressed on the house. Both the motion and the amendment were withdrawn.

On the 15th of May Mr. Tennyson submitted a motion for leave to introduce a bill to shorten the duration of parliaments. He reserved to himself the right, he said, of suggesting the precise period to which parliaments should extend, when the measure had gone into committee. The motion was seconded by Sir Edward Codrington, who expressed himself in favour of five years as being more likely to reconcile the different parties. Colonel Davies opposed the motion as being premature; and Lord Dalmeny thought the passing of the reform act the strongest possible reason against entertaining the question. In reply, Mr. Tennyson stated that those who supported the bill would bind themselves only to the propriety of shortening the duration of parliaments, without at all pledging themselves to any particular period, which might be reserved for determination in committee; whereas, those who voted against it, would give a conclusive opinion that the present term ought to be continued. Mr. E. J. Stanley moved, byway of amendment, that the bill be one to shorten parliaments to five years, which was negatived without a division: the original motion was lost by a majority of fifty. Subsequently Colonel Evans moved for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the reform act, in so far as it made the payment of rates and taxes an essential qualification for voting at parliamentary elections, which was supported by Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, Attwood, and O’Connell. The motion was opposed by Lords John Russell and Althorp; and it was lost, on a division, by a majority of eighty-seven. Previous to this, Lord John Russell had introduced a bill to prevent bribery at elections, which had passed the commons. The peers had referred this bill to a select committee; and on the 28th of July, the Marquis of Lansdowne, on presenting the report of the committee, stated that there had been no interference with the powers possessed by the election committees of the house of commons. The single object kept in view by the committee was the attainment of the proposed end in the speediest manner possible. Accordingly an amendment on the bill was suggested, by which it was directed that, when a committee of the house of commons had come to the conclusion that gross and extensive bribery had been committed in any place, the result of that inquiry should be laid before their lordships; and then the crown should issue a commission, over which one of the judges should preside, to form a court of inquiry on the whole matter in dispute. He proposed that this court should consist of seven members of the house of commons, five of their lordships, and one judge, who should have the power of calling before them all persons and documents affecting the subject of inquiry; that the witnesses should be exempted from the consequences of any evidence which they might be called on to give; and that a statement of the result having been drawn up, any legislative enactment with regard to the alleged abuse should be left to the discretion of the two houses of parliament. When these amendments were brought under the consideration of the lower house, Lord John Russell thought them of so extensive a nature as to render the bill almost a new measure; and ultimately he agreed to withdraw it.