1833-1834 PRACTICAL REFORMS 911 flogged for attending a dissenting chapel, was flogged merely for sighing. When Stanley came into office, new as he was to the details of the subject, he mastered them in three weeks, and carried a Bill for the complete abolition of slavery, though leaving the former slaves apprentices to their late masters for twelve years. ¦ The purchase-money given by Great Britain to the slave-owners was 20,000,000. The apprenticeship system was found unsatisfactory and was soon done away with. 4. The First Factory Act. 1833.-The abolition of negro slavery was accompanied by an effort to lighten the sorrows of factory children who were kept at work in unwholesome air often for thirteen hours a day. Lord Ashley, who afterwards became Earl of Shaftesbury, took up their cause, and carried a Bill limiting the hours of labour for children under thirteen years to eight hours a day, and for children between thirteen and eighteen to twelve hours a day, though he would himself have preferred a stronger 9 measure. This law was the beginning of a factory legislation which has done much to make England peaceable and contented. 5. The New Poor Law. 1834. The session of 1834 was occupied with a measure of a different kind. The Poor Law, as it existed, was a direct encouragement to thriftlessness. Relief was given to the poor at random, even when they were earning wages, so that employers of labour preferred to be served by paupers, because part of the wages would then be paid out of the rates. The more children a poor man had the more he received from the rates, and in this and in other ways labourers were taught that they would be better off by being dependent on the parish than by striving to make their own way in the world. The consequent increase of the rates had become unbearable to those who had to pay them in one parish, for instance, rates which had been less than 117. in 1801 had risen to 3677. in 1832. By the new Poor Law, passed in 1834, workhouses were built and no person was to receive relief who did not consent to live in one of them. The object of this rule was that no one might claim to be supported by others who was capable of supporting himself, and residence in the workhouse, where work would be required, was considered as the best test of real poverty, because it was thought that no one would consent to go in unless he was really distressed. Afterwards it was remembered that in some cases, such as those of old people who could not work even if they had the will, no such test was required. The strict rule of the law was, therefore, subsequently relaxed, and outdoor relief granted in certain cases. 6. Break-up of the Ministry. 1834.--The ministry had by this time lost much of its popularity. Every piece of successful legislation alienated some of its supporters, and the rapidity of the changes effected by the reformed Parliament frightened many easygoing people. Peel, too, who led the Conservatives in the House of Commons, was growing in favour by the ability, and still more by the moderation, which he displayed. The ministers, too, disagreed amongst themselves. An open rupture occurred when Lord John Russell declared for the right of Parliament to appropriate the misused revenues of the Irish Church to other purposes. "Johnny," wrote Stanley to Sir James Graham, the First Lord of the Admiralty, "has upset the coach." Stanley, Graham, and Lord Ripon ---who had formerly been known as Lord Goderich (see p. 892) — resigned together. Further misunderstandings brought about the resignation of Grey, who had been an excellent Prime Minister as long as the Reform question was still unsettled, but who did not possess the qualities needed in the head of a divided Cabinet. He was succeeded by Lord Melbourne, and Melbourne contrived to keep his followers together for a few months. In November, however, Lord Althorp, who was the leader of the House of Commons, became Earl Spencer by his father's death, and it was therefore necessary to find a successor to him. The king, who had long been alienated from the Reformers, took advantage of the occasion to dismiss the ministry. It was the last time that a ministry was dismissed by a sovereign. 7. Foreign Policy of the Reformers. 1830-1834.-Whilst the home policy of the Reform ministry had been weakened by divisions in the Cabinet, its foreign policy had been in the strong hands of Lord Palmerston (see p. 901). In 1830 the revolution at Paris had been followed by a revolution at Brussels, the object of which was not to procure internal reforms but to separate Belgium from the kingdom of the Netherlands, of which it had formed a part only since 1814 (see p. 873). Lord Palmerston's policy was to forward the desire of the Belgians for independence and at the same time to hinder any attempt on the part of France to annex their territory. In this, with the assistance of Louis Philippe the new king of the French, he completely succeeded. In 1831 Leopold of Saxe Coburg, whose first wife had been the Princess Charlotte (see p. 881), was chosen by the Belgians as their king, and married one of the daughters of Louis Philippe. Though the Dutch resisted for a time, they were compelled to relinquish their hold on any part of Belgium. A French army captured from them 1834-1835 PEEL AND MELBOURNE 913 the citadel of Antwerp and then retired to its own territory. The key-stone of Palmerston's policy was an alliance-not too trustful -between the constitutional monarchies of England and France, which was drawn the more tightly because the absolute government of Austria crushed all attempts at resistance in Italy, and the absolute government of Russia put down with great harshness an attempt made by Poland to assert her independence. To these two monarchies Prussia was a close ally, and Europe was thus divided into two camps, the absolute and the constitutional. 8. Peel's First Ministry. 1834-1835.-Sir Robert Peel, having been appointed Prime Minister by the king, dissolved Parliament. In an address to the electors of Tamworth, the borough for which he stood, he threw off the doctrines of the old Tories, professing himself to be a moderate but conservative reformer. This 'Tamworth manifesto,' as it was called, served his party in good stead. The Conservatives gained seat after seat, and it is probable that, if the king had had a little more patience and had allowed the ministry to fall to pieces of itself instead of dismissing it, the Conservatives would have been in a majority. As it was, though they had nearly half the House, they were still in a minority. When Parliament met, February 19, 1835, it had some difficulty in finding temporary accommodation, as the old Houses of Parliament, in which the struggles of nearly three centuries had been conducted, had been burnt to the ground in the preceding October. Peel was outvoted from the beginning, but he insisted on bringing in his measures before he would retire, and, at all events, had the satisfaction of showing that he was capable of preparing good laws as well as of giving good advice. The Liberals, however, were too angry to adopt even good laws when proposed by a minister who had risen to power by the use of the king's prerogative. They entered into an agreement with O'Connell, known, from the place where its terms were settled, as the Lichfield House Compact, and, having thus secured, by the support of the Irish members, an undivided majority, they insisted on the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Irish Church to purposes of education. "They carried a succession of votes on this subject, and, on April 8, 1835, Peel resigned. He left behind him a general impression that he was the first statesman in the country. 9. Beginning of Melbourne's Second Ministry. 1835-1837.Melbourne again became Prime Minister, and Russell Home Secretary and leader of the House of Commons. The first great work of the new ministry was the passing of a Municipal Corporations Bill, providing that corporations should be elected by the ratepayers, instead of being self-chosen as they frequently were. The Tories in the House of Lords, where they had a large majority, tried to introduce considerable alterations in it, but Peel threw them over and accepted the Bill with a few changes, so that it became law without further difficulty. Peel gained in credit by subordinating the interests of his party to those of the country, and the ministry consequently lost ground. Their weakness was exposed by the attitude which they were obliged to assume towards the Lords on another question. The Commons passed a Bill for placing Irish tithes upon the landlord instead of the tenant, adding the Appropriation Clause which they had formerly attempted to attach to the Bill for the reduction of the number of Bishops (see p. 910). The Lords threw out the clause, and the ministers then withdrew the Bill. Attempts made in later years to get the Bill passed with the clause equally failed, and at last, in 1838, ministers ignominiously dropped the clause, upon which they passed the Bill through both Houses. A Government with the House of Commons and the ration at its back can in modern times defy the House of Lords. Melbourne's Government tried to defy it with the support of the House of Commons but without the support of the nation. Banner of the Royal Arms, as borne Consequently, though some useful measures were passed, the Lords were able, in the teeth of the Government, to reject anything they disliked. 10. Queen Victoria. 1837.--On June 20, 1837, William IV. died, and was succeeded by his niece the Princess Victoria who was just over eighteen, the time of life at which heirs to the throne come of age. Her dignity and grace won her general popularity, and the ministry, which she was known to favour, regained some popularity and, after the new elections had been held in the autumn, it was, as before, supported by a small majority in the House of Commons. since 1837. II. Canada. 1837-1841.-The state of Canada at this time caused great difficulties to the ministry. Upper and Lower Canada were independent colonies, the population of the former |