[1833 A.D.]

under this category 30 seats were made vacant. As the number of members that composed the house of commons was not to be diminished, these 143 constituencies were transferred to the towns and districts that had increased in population and importance. In like manner, while no change was made upon Ireland, Scotland retained her former number of representatives, but with changes adapted to the increase of the population in new localities, and its diminution in the old. The mode of election was also simplified in town and country, both as to the time occupied, and the registration of voters, as also the qualifications for a vote, inhabitants of towns being entitled to the franchise who paid ten pounds of yearly rental, and of the counties, copy-holders and lease-holders to the value of forty shillings. In this way it was attempted to combine the privileges of the old agricultural and the new mercantile England; to reconcile the moneyed with the hereditary aristocracy; and so to extend the right of election as to make the house of commons what it claimed to be-the representation of the bulk of the people, as well as of its worth and intelligence.

THE COERCION BILL; THE TITHES

A coercion bill for the suppression of disturbances in Ireland was introduced into the house of lords by Earl Grey, and was there carried without opposition. The necessity of such a bill was shown by the fact that the aggregate of crimes during the preceding year amounted to upwards of nine thousand, connected with the disturbed state of the country, and that the list was on the increase. But long and loud and fierce was the opposition it met with in the commons from O'Connell and his well-jointed tail. Some of these Irish members did not hesitate to say in private that the Coercion Bill was absolutely and immediately necessary. One of the chief of them said in the hearing of several members of the house, "We, as Irish patriots and members, must oppose the bill to the utmost; but if you do not pass it, by heavens there will be no security for property or for life in Ireland!" Words to this effect being subsequently repeated, created a hurricane which will not soon be forgotten. Mr. Matthew Davenport Hill, one of the members for Hull, who had first disclosed this precious specimen of Irish sincerity, received a batch of challenges, being challenged by nearly one half of the members of the O'Connell tail; and only Lord Althorp stood forward like a man of honour, like an English gentleman, to the rescue of Mr. Hill in the house of commons. At last, on the 29th of March, the bill, being slightly altered in the commons, was read a third time and passed. Its effect was materially to decrease the number of outrageous offences that were prevalent throughout the country. Mr. Stanley now resigned the uneasy office of secretary for Ireland, and was succeeded by Sir John Cam Hobhouse. Mr. Stanley became secretary for the colonies, that place being vacated by Viscount Goderich, who was made lord privy-seal and advanced in the peerage by the title of Earl of Ripon.

For a long time there had been no collecting tithes in Ireland without a riot -in many cases they could not be collected at all. A resolution was now passed for exchequer bills not exceeding £1,000,000 to be issued for advancing, under certain conditions, 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 any person entitled to such arrears or tithes, and desirous of receiving such advances. The amount advanced was to be included in the tithe composition, so as to be repaid in the course of five years by

[1833 A.D.] half-yearly instalments. Many people now said that England, besides paying its own tithe, would have to pay the Irish tithe also. Two commissions were issued, one for inquiring into the corporations of Ireland, and the other for investigating the condition of its labouring classes.

THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY

An important question during this season was the abolition of negro slavery in the West Indies. It was a subject which the first reform parliament could not consistently avoid, and its final settlement had been confidently anticipated both by the friends and the enemies of the new state of things. It was also found, that the half measures already passed were unsatisfactory both to the slave and the slaveholder; for while the former had enjoyed such a portion of liberty as made him anxious to possess the whole, the latter could no longer compel the amount of service which was necessary for the full cultivation of his farms and plantations. The negroes found that they had rights secured for them by the state, and that their slavery had in many cases been exchanged into voluntary service, while the planters endeavoured to evade these restrictions, even at the double risk of provoking the wrath of the home government, and open rebellion among their own black dependents. It was certain also that these negroes were now so elevated in spirit, intelligence, and selfreliance, that they could not be reduced to their former serfage; that they were fitted for the enjoyment of that full freedom of which the previous instalments had been a promise and preparative; and that if it was not freely and peacefully accorded to them, they would soon be in a condition to extort it by force and violence. Such were the considerations, irrespective of those of humanity and duty, which had prepared the public mind of Britain for the full measure of negro emancipation. All being in readiness, Mr. Stanley, now secretary for the colonies, explained the ministerial scheme for the purpose in a committee of the whole house of commons, on the 14th of May.

On the 30th of August the Emancipation Act was passed in the lords. As yet it was not found possible, and it was perhaps not advisable, to let loose in an instant the whole negro population of the West Indies from their bondage into the enjoyment of full-grown liberty; and on this account, as well as from the resistance of the slaveholders themselves, the system of gradualism had still to be recognised in this great abolition. But the abolition itself was to be soon, and certain, and complete, while little more than the mere name of slavery was to be for a short time retained. On the 1st of August, 1834, the young children of the slaves were to be free. Of those who were still slaves, their servitude was to be changed into an apprenticeship that was to last, in the case of field slaves for seven, and of house slaves for five, years during which they were to be considered as free labourers in every respect, except in the right of changing their masters. In this way, negro slavery was speedily to expire throughout the whole British dominions. But while humanity liberated the bondman, justice was equally ready to compensate the master; and here a sacrifice was made which may well serve as an example to future ages, when some great national error is to be revoked and its injuries atoned for. It was at first proposed that the planters should be compensated for their loss of slave labour by a loan of £15,000,000 sterling; but when it was represented that this sum was inadequate, and that it could not well be repaid, the loan was converted into a gift, and the £15,000,000 into £20,000,000. Such munificence on the part of an impoverished nation, by whom it was as cheerfully and readily granted as if it had been the expenditure of a great national

[1833-1834 A.D.]

triumph, will serve as a brand for the foreheads of all future slaveholders to the end of time. If anything could cloud the joy of such an event, it was the circumstance that only thirty-one days before the Emancipation Act had passed, Wilberforce, its author and champion, had died. He had struggled through many a year, amidst despondency and despair, and finally amidst the more wasting inflictions of hope deferred, in behalf of a beloved measure on which his whole energies had been concentrated; and now, when the crowning effort was to be made, he was stretched upon a death-bed, without the hope of witnessing the result. But he was cheered with the assurance that the beloved project of his life was safe, and that in a few days the bill would be passed. It was a happy foretaste of that "Well done" for which his whole life had been a preparation; and joy as well as peace illuminated the good man's departure.c

THE NEW POOR LAW (1834 A.D.)

The great measure of the session of parliament for 1834 was the passing of the act for "the Amendment and better Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor in England and Wales." That session was opened on the 4th of February, and concluded on the 15th of August. The speaker, in his address to the king on the day of prorogation, said that the Poor Law Amendment Bill had almost from the commencement to the close of the session occupied the unwearied attention of the commons. It was impossible, he continued, for them to approach a subject of such infinite delicacy and such immense importance "without much of apprehension, and, he might say, much of alarm." It was several years before the apprehension and alarm passed away; before the hope of the speaker could be generally entertained, "that its benefits will be as lasting as they will be grateful to all ranks and classes of society." The bill was brought in by Lord Althorp on the 17th of April.

It was absolutely necessary, he said, that there should be a discretionary power vested in some quarter to carry into effect recommendations calculated to introduce sound principles and the fruits of salutary experience into the administration of the poor laws. It was his intention therefore to propose that his majesty should be authorised to appoint a central board of commissioners, invested with extraordinary power to enable it to accomplish the object proposed. The bill introduced by Lord Althorp was founded upon the recommendations of the commissioners of inquiry. It had remained a month under the consideration of the cabinet, two of the commissioners, Mr. Sturges Bourne and Mr. Senior, occasionally attending to afford explanations. The proposition of this great measure was very favourably received by the house of commons. The second reading was carried by a large majority: ayes, 299; noes, 20.

Upon the third reading of the bill the ayes were 157, the noes 50. The duration of the measure was then limited to five years.

Between the passing of the bill by the commons on the 2nd of July and its proposed second reading by the lords, Lord Grey had retired from the government, and Lord Melbourne had become the head of the administration. It was not till the 21st that Lord Brougham moved the second reading. "My lords," he said, "I should have been unworthy of the task that has been committed to my hands, if by any deference to clamour I could have been made to swerve from the faithful discharge of this duty. The subject is infinitely too important, the interests which it involves are far too mighty, and the duty correlative to the importance of those interests which the government I

[1834 A.D.] belong to has to discharge is of too lofty, too sacred a nature, to make it possible for any one who aspires to the name of a statesman, or who has taken upon himself to counsel his sovereign upon the arduous concerns of his realm, to let the dictates of clamour find any access to his breast, and make him sacrifice his principles to a covetousness of popular applause.' Never were the qualities of the great orator more remarkably displayed than in this speech. Historical research, accurate reasoning, a complete mastery of facts, majestic rhetoric-all were brought to bear upon a subject which the mere utilitarian would have clothed with the repulsive precision of statistical detail. The measure was opposed by Lord Wynford; it was supported by the duke of Wellington. The house divided upon the motion for the second reading: contents, 76; non-contents, 13. During the progress of the bill through both houses, many of the clauses were strenuously resisted in committee. The amendments that were carried were however comparatively of little importance, and it finally received the royal assent on the 14th of August.

The task which his majesty had first imposed upon Lord Melbourne was one of insurmountable difficulty. It was to effect "an union in the service of the state of all those who stand at the head of the respective parties in the country." The king, in desiring Lord Melbourne "to enter into communication with the leading individuals of parties," specially mentioned the duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Stanley. In an audience upon the 9th Viscount Melbourne had laid before his majesty some of those general objections which pressed forcibly upon his mind to unions and coalitions of opposing parties. He wrote to the king on the 10th that he considered the successful termination of such an attempt utterly hopeless. He had no personal dislikes or objections; on the contrary, for all the individuals in question he entertained great respect. In consequence of the communication to Sir Robert Peel, on the 13th of July, he wrote to the king that such a union as that proposed could not, in the present state of parties and the present position of public affairs, hold out the prospect of an efficient and vigorous administration. The king admitted on the 14th that the opinions which had been stated by Sir Robert Peel and by others, of the impracticability of his proposal, had appeared to him to be conclusive. The king had evidently imagined that if he could effect such a union of parties, the question of the Irish church, upon which he had expressed himself very strongly, might be set at rest.

FIRE DESTROYS THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (1834 A.D.)

Parliament was prorogued on the 15th of August. On the 16th of October the houses of parliament were destroyed by fire. It was between six and seven o'clock on that evening that flames were seen bursting forth from the roof of the house of lords, in that part of the building opposite to Henry VII's chapel, and in the corner next Westminster Hall. By nine o'clock all the apartments of that portion of the parliament buildings, including the Painted Chamber and the library, were in flames, and the whole interior was in a few hours destroyed. The fire extended to the house of commons, first destroying the large offices of the house, and next seizing upon the chapel of St. Stephen. When all the interior fittings were destroyed, this building, which had been famous as the seat of English legislation from the time of Edward VI, was a mere shell. It had stood in its strength and beauty like a rock amidst the sea of fire, and had arrested the force which had till then gone on conquering and overthrowing. The speaker's official residence was also partially de

[1834 A.D.]

stroyed. There was one time when the destruction of Westminster Hall seemed almost inevitable. To those who mixed amongst the crowd in Palace Yard, and knew that the antiquities of a nation are amongst its best possessions, it was truly gratifying to witness the intense anxiety of all classes of people to preserve this building, associated with so many grand historical scenes. "Save the hall!" "Save the hall!" was the universal cry.

THE MELBOURNE MINISTRY DISMISSED (1834 A.D.)

On the 14th of November William IV, without a word of preparation, intimated to Lord Melbourne that his ministry was at an end.

The sensation produced in London by the reported dismissal of the ministry was a natural consequence of the suddenness of the act, as it presented itself to the body of the people-of its really unconstitutional character, as it appeared to thoughtful and well-informed men. On the morning of Saturday, the 15th of November-the day when the duke of Wellington was writing his confidential letter to Sir Robert Peel-the Times had this startling announcement, given in the words of a communication which had been received at an early hour that morning: "The king has taken the opportunity of Lord Spencer's death to turn out the ministry, and there is every reason to believe that the duke of Wellington has been sent for. The queen has done it all." The act of the king was wholly without precedent. He might have become converted to the politics of the opposition. He might have been alarmed at the possible scandal of the quarrel between the chancellor and Lord Durham. But there was no disunion in the cabinet. The ministry had retained the confidence of parliament up to the last day of the session. They had pressed no opinions upon his majesty which could be disagreeable to him. The government of Lord Melbourne had more elements of conservatism than were agreeable to many reformers, and therefore appeared unlikely to excite the fears of the king and of his court. The sovereign has a constitutional right to dismiss his ministers, but it must be on grounds more capable of justification to parliament than the simple exercise of his personal will. The suddenness of the resolve rendered an arrangement necessary which could not be justified by any precedent, except on one occasion of critical emergency in the last days of Queen Anne. The duke of Wellington, from the 15th of November to the 9th of December, was first lord of the treasury and the sole secretary of state, having only one colleague, Lord Lyndhurst, who held the great seal, at the same time that he sat as chief baron of the court of exchequer. This temporary government was called a dictatorship. "The great military commander" was told [in a speech by Lord Durham] that he will find it to have been much easier to take Badajoz and Ciudad Rodrigo than to retake the liberties and independence of the people."

66

And so, as to the inevitable necessity of a dissolution, thought Sir Robert Peel. In spite of his doubts of the policy of breaking up the government of Lord Melbourne, he had become convinced that he had no alternative but to undertake the office of prime minister instantly on his arrival. He at once waited upon the king, and accepted the office of first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer. With the king's permission he applied to Lord Stanley and to Sir James Graham, earnestly entreating them to give him the benefit of their co-operation as colleagues in the cabinet. They both declined. Lord Stanley manfully said: "The sudden conversion of long political opposition into the most intimate alliance-no general coincidence of principle, except upon one point, being proved to exist between us-would