XXXVI. 1837. CHAP. did in starving ambition, this was without doubt a very powerful engine of government. But in addition to that, he had recourse to much more questionable measures. Availing himself of the prerogative of mercy, which is the brightest jewel in the viceroy's as the royal crown, he rendered it so common, and prostituted it to such interests, as rendered it a curse rather than a blessing to the country. Setting out from the Castle of Dublin, he proceeded on a regular progress through the provinces, liberating such prisoners as had had their cases favourably represented to him by the local authorities. It appeared, from his own statement in the House of Peers on 21st March 1839, when this matter was brought under discussion, that between November 1837 and January 31, 1839, he had 1631 memorials presented to him, praying for the liberation of prisoners, of whom he had liberated 822.* It must be added, that the prerogative of mercy had been as largely exercised by previous lord-lieutenants, particularly by Lord Wellesley in 1834, and that during Lord Normanby's administration there had been a sensible diminution in committals, and increase of convictions; the latter having become 71 per cent of the former. But all such wholesale use of the prerogative of mercy is dangerous, and of bad example, especially in a country such as Ireland, where party spirit ran so high, and every measure of Government, even the most humane and generous, is invariably set down by the Opposition to the undue influence of their political opponents. When the matter, accordingly, was brought before the two Houses of Parliament, Ministers had only a majority of 26 in the Commons; while in the Lords, resolutions, condem- CHAP. XXXVI. xlix. 1381; natory of Lord Normanby's policy, especially in the 1837. administration of justice and the distribution of mercy, 1 Parl. Deb. brought forward by Lord Brougham, were carried, on xlvii. 4-7, August 1839, by a majority of 34 in a house of 138.* Ann. Reg. The result was, that Lord Normanby retired from the 60. viceroyalty, and was succeeded by Lord Ebrington.1 1839, 55, mise be on the ap clause Bill. The compromise between the two houses, evidently 66. pointed at in the postponement of the municipal bill by Comprothe House of Lords in 1837, was prevented from being tween the carried into effect at the time in consequence of the two houses King's death, and dissolution consequent upon it, in the propriation summer of that year. As the new elections, however, Municipal left the comparative strength of parties very much the same as before, the leaders on both sides saw the necessity of coming to a compromise. On the one hand, Lord Melbourne, whose easy temper and insouciant disposition was always inclined to avoid a difficulty rather than face it, had long been anxious to have the matter adjusted, which could only be done by mutual concessions, and he had only been restrained by the ardent feelings of his followers from going into an arrangement long before. He had now, however, become so strongly impressed with the imprudence, to give it no harsher name, of annually carrying a measure by considerable majorities in the Lower House, which was as regularly thrown out by still larger majorities in the Upper, that at length he made a compromise of the difficulty a Cabinet question. On the other hand, the Duke of Wellington and Sir R. Peel were no less impressed with the stoppage to useful legislation which resulted from this state of antagonism of the two houses, and the danger that, if it continued much longer, the nation might become convulsed on the subject, and the cry for peerage reform "The majority, when the case was first brought forward, was 5—63 to 58."-Ann. Reg., 1839, p. 60. XXXVI. 1838. CHAP, be as formidable as ever that for parliamentary had been. Impressed with these ideas, an approximation took place between the leaders on both sides, and the conditions of it were, that the appropriation clause was to be abandoned in the Irish Church Bill, on the one hand, and the Peers were to give way in their resistance to corporate reform in that country, on the other. 67. carried into effect. It was easier, however, for the leaders, who felt the Which is responsibility of command on both sides, to come to an understanding, than to persuade their followers on either, who were animated only with the eagerness of conflict, to go into it. At length, however, though not without great difficulty, and no small ebullition of spleen on both sides, the desired adjustment was effected, though more than a year elapsed before it was fully carried into effect. On 27th March 1838, Sir R. Peel inquired of Lord John Russell what course he intended to pursue in regard to the Irish Tithe Bill, and whether he meant to introduce it with the appropriation clause in terms of the resolutions of 1835? Lord John, in reply, stated that the Ministers intended to place "the tithe question on a footing altogether new," as it appeared useless and irritating to prolong, after a conflict of four years, an argument which produced nothing. It was generally felt at the time, what was the truth, that this was an announcement of the abandonment of the appropriation clause. But in order to bring the matter to a test, Sir T. Acland, on 14th May, brought forward a distinct motion for the rescinding of the resolutions of the house, in April 1835, in favour of it. Sir R. Peel on this occasion gave vent to natural and excusable feelings of pride at seeing the Tithe Bill now reduced to the form which he had announced for it, when in power in March 1835, and the appropriation clause, which his opponents had declared to be essential to the measure, withdrawn by their own. hands. The motion was lost by a majority of 19; May 14. XXXVI. 1838. and it was no wonder it was so, for the house could CHAP. hardly be expected to confess defeat by rescinding their own resolutions. The bill was now brought forward, on July 2, without the appropriation clause, and a motion made by Mr Ward for the restoration of that clause lost by a majority of 270 to 46, the Ministers themselves voting against it. The bill as it now stood passed the House of Lords without a division, and was a very great improvement, for it provided the means of a general commutation of tithes in Ireland, under a deduction of 25 per cent only, which in the circumstances was not unreasonable. There can be no doubt that Lord Melbourne acted the part of a true patriot on this occasion, for he gave up a mere party question to insure the passing of a great social improvement. That, however, was not the view taken of it by party men on either side; and Lord Brougham gave expression to the general feeling in Parliament on the subject, when he said: "I never looked to see the day when appropriation should be given to the winds, as if the thing had never been-as if it had not been the means of unseating one Ministry and seating another. So much for appropriation !—the chapter of appropriation, its origin, history, flourishing, decline, and xlii. 1203, fall; how in the fulness of time, having answered every 1353; Ann. Reg. 1838, good purpose, it has been gently laid aside and put to 144 rest without a single requiem being sung over its grave.”1 1 Parl. Deb. 1325, 1345, of the Irish Bill. The settlement of the Municipal Corporation Bill in 68. Ireland did not take place quite so soon; but the com- Settlement promise in regard to it, too, was in the end carried into Municipal effect. Lord John Russell, on 7th February 1837, moved for leave to bring in the Irish Municipal Bill, which was carried by a majority of 55-the numbers being 302 to 247; and, as already mentioned, the consideration of the bill was adjourned in the House of Peers till it was seen what course Ministers were to adopt in regard to the Irish Tithe Bill. Early in 1838 the bill was again intro XXXVI. 1838. CHAP. duced by Lord John Russell in the House of Commons, and in pursuance of the agreement, Sir R. Peel did not object to the second reading, and admitted the principle of popular election, but moved in committee that £10 rating should be the qualification, which was rejected by a majority of only 20; the numbers being 286 to 266. When the bill came into the House of Lords, Lord Lyndhurst moved as an amendment that the qualification be fixed at £10, which was carried by 96 to 36. 1 Ann. Reg. Several other minor amendments were also carried in the 1838, 125131; Parl. Peers, which were so distasteful to the Commons that Lord John Russell threw up the bill altogether for that session.1 Deb. xliv. 871, 975. 69. bill in 1839 Matters looked very unpromising, in this stage, for the Fate of the success of the compromise; and they were not materially and 1840. improved in the next session of Parliament. Lord John Russell again brought forward the bill as it stood, and the second reading was carried by a majority of 26, Sir R. Peel and Lord Stanley voting with the majority. Sir R. Peel proposed, however, in committee, that the rating should be raised to £10 to confer a vote, which was carried against him in the Commons by a majority of 21, and in his favour in the Lords by a majority of 43; and upon this amendment being brought under the consideration of the Commons, Lord John Russell abandoned the bill a second time. Matters thus seemed to be inextricable, and the compromise as far as ever from being carried into effect; but in the following year it met with more success. The bill was then introduced by Lord Morpeth, on 14th February, with the rating fixed at £8, and on this occasion Sir R. Peel and his whole personal followers voted for the bill, on the ground that a settlement of the question had become indispensable, and that the bill, * Ann. Reg. as now amended, was the best which in the circumstances 1840, 112117; Parl. could be got.2 It passed the Commons, accordingly, by a 1165-1172. majority of 148; in the Lords, the qualification was again raised to £10, being that in the Scotch Municipal Aug. 12, 1839. Feb. 14, 1840. Deb. xliv. |