THE objects, which principally occupied the attention of the States of Holland during the present year, were the improvement of their judicial system, and the depressed state of the agricultural interest. A bill was passed altering the constitution and forms of the courts of justice; and part of a new code of commercial law was enacted. In the session which occupied the early part of the year, the distresses of the agriculturists were brought before the second Chamber by M. van Dam van Ysselt, who moved for an address to the king, praying the appointment of a commission to inquire into the state of agriculture. It was opposed by several deputies on different grounds:-1st, that the manner in which the subject had been brought forward was unconstitutional; 2dly, that the proposition was unnecessary, after the notice which had been taken of the state of agriculture by his majesty, in the speech with which he opened the session, and in the address which replied to that speech;

3dly, that, instead of an inquiry, a specific law should be proposed, by which means opportunity would be afforded for the full discussion of the question; 4thly, that there was reason to fear that the measures which might be adopted for the relief of agriculture would operate injuriously on other interests of great national importance. The motion was, however, supported by a majority of members, who, with protests against the introduction of restrictive laws, declared their readiness to concur in any measure for the benefit of agriculture, provided it did not endanger other interests. They therefore voted for inquiry. One of the majority referred to the land-tax, the excise on different articles, the duties on distillation, and various other imposts, which, he observed, indirectly affect agriculture, and which, in conjunction with the other public burdens, formed in his opinion, the real cause of the distress. Another member, who voted on the same side, blamed the government for

not leaving agriculture more to itself, and insisted that the general welfare should not be sacrificed by imposing high duties on the importation of corn; ascribing the distress to the weight of taxation, the financial measures of the government, the inundation of some districts, and the unfortunate political relations in which the country had now for more than four years been placed.

The motion for an address was carried by thirty-seven to fifteen; but it was rejected by the first Chamber, to whom it had been communicated for their concurrence. Before the chambers however, again met, which they did on the 19th October, the government had resolved to bring forward a protective measure; and to prevent its operation from being impeded by an excessive importation in the mean time, a decree appeared on the 29th of September, ordaining that on all grain imported after that date, security should be found for payment of the higher duties which might be imposed by an act to be passed during the aproaching session of the states. These duties were fixed, in the mean time at two francs twenty-two centimes, per muid for wheat; eightyone centimes for buck-wheat and rye; fifty-eight centimes for barley; and sixty-six centimes for oats. The corn bill itself was recommended in the speech from the throne with which the session in October was opened, and was shortly afterwards introduced by the government. It was strongly opposed by the commercial and manufacturing interest, who stigmatized it as a plan to benefit one class at the expence of all the rest of the population, and as a first step towards the establishment of

Al

a system of prohibitions. though it was supported by all the influence of government, it was carried by a majority of only 29 to 25.

The questions in dispute with Belgium remained in the same unsettled state in which the preceding year had left them. At the opening of the session the king informed the states, that no opportunity had yet presented itself of regulating the relations between the two countries in a manner conformable to the interests and the honour of Holland, and that the time when a more favourable prospect might open was uncertain. In their address, the states general spoke of the proper arrangement of these relations as becoming more and more necessary to the nation. One consequence of this unsettled state of matters was, that Holland had still to pay the interest on the Belgium share of the common debt. This was strongly resisted by several members of the second chamber. They treated the payment as being one, which not only was injurious and burdensome to Holland, but was not due by her; and they contended that, at all events, it ought not to be voted till the Chamber was satisfied, that the government had done everything, which it could do with propriety, to bring the dif ference with Belgium to a termination. On the other hand, it was maintained that to discontinue the payment would retard rather than accelerate a final arrangement, and that the injury thereby inflicted upon public credit would be much more disastrous than the temporary burden. The vote was carried by a large majority of thirty-nine to twelve.

In Holland part of the revenue

consists of personal contributions, a sort of poll tax. It being fiequently found difficult and expensive, as in the case of Irish tithes, to recover it from poor tenants, a law had been passed transferring the payment of the tax from the occupiers of houses to their landlords. This provision, as well as the tax itself was very unpopular, and, in the month of July, it occasioned riots in Amsterdam. The goods of a proprietor had been distrained for payment of the tax due by his tenants. He belonged to an association formed by the proprietors for mutual assistance against the tax. On the day fixed for the sale of goods in terms of the law, a great number of the members of this society assembled in the house, and a multitude of persons collected around it, and crowded the neighbouring streets. When the bailiff, charged with the execution, appeared, accompanied by a policeofficer, the people refused to allow them to enter the house, and declared that nothing should be sold. The bailiff withdrew, but the police-officer, who attempted to make an entry, was roughly handled. The fermentation of the people's mind was immediately manifested by acts of violence, throwing stones, &c.; and no purchasers appeared. The articles of furniture seized were deposited in a wooden building, in the Heerenmarkt. Some veterans were posted before this building, where they, as well as the police-officers, suffered a good deal from the violence of the assembled populace, and only the presence of the Schuttery and the veterans hindered the mob from committing serious disorders. In the evening, the Schuttery received orders to retire, and the veterans remained alone in the

midst of the furious multitude, who surrounded, pressed, and separated them from each other, so that they were unable to make any serious resistance. The mob being now masters of the field, the building was forced open by the aid of large beams which were fetched from another place; the goods were taken out and burnt; the building was set on fire, and was reduced to ashes before the military, being again brought to the spot, dispersed the rioters. Nine of the rioters were tried and convicted, and were condemned to the pillory, and to imprisonment for different periods of eight, six, and five years.

In BELGIUM, the formation of sir Robert Peel's ministry had excited alarm, lest the policy of the great powers should now be less favourable to the young kingdom, and in particular lest Britain should refuse to interfere to compel the Germanic confederation to concede the demands of the Belgians on the duchy of Luxembourg. The foreign minister was subjected, in the chamber of deputies, to a series of interrogatories, which were put to him in writing, and to which he returned written answers. He had received, he said, no communication from the German diet regarding Luxembourg. He had received communications from the English ministry since the entrance of the duke of Wellington into the administration. These had been perfectly satisfactory with respect not only to general peace but also to the independence of Belgium, and left no doubt but that the English cabinet would respect and fulfil the engagements contracted by their predecessors. He was asked whether France and England together, or either of them separately, in the event of the other

declining or objecting, would interfere in the conflict which seemed to threaten Luxembourg. The minister said, he could only answer that, in case of an invasion, he had no reason to believe that either France or England would fail in the guarantee which they had promised to Belgium, and that an invasion, or serious threat of invasion, would form a casus fœderis, which would justify Belgium in calling for their assistance. These explanations were deemed satisfactory; but as there were reports of military preparations in Holland, the government asked, and the Chamber granted, ten per cent additional on the taxes of

the year.

The budget of the year, besides 3,392,900 francs (134,716) for the catholic worship, and 40,000 francs (1,6007.) for the protestant churches in Limburg, proposed a grant of 10,000 francs, or 400l. for the anglican church in Brussels and Antwerp. The members of the lower Chamber voted the money without difficulty on the ground that the great number of English who came to Brussels to spend their incomes, ought to have the means of attending divine service according to the rites of their own church. The committee of the senate, to whom the budget was referred, proposed by a majority of three against two, that this item should be rejected; the senate itself, however, adopted the views of the other chamber, but only by a majority of eighteen to thirteen.

A murderer having been ordered for execution at Courtray in the month of March, a motion for the abolition of capital punishment was immediately made in the Chamber of representatives. It

was referred to the sections of the Chamber for examination. The sections in general were of opinion that the question ought to be delayed till the observations of the tribunals on the proposed modifications of the penal code should be known. The central section, again, thought there was reason to discuss this project separately, and to refer to the courts of justice and tribunals of the chief towns of the kingdom, the following questions: 1. Is there reason to abolish the punishment of death in all cases?

2. Should the answer be in the negative, to state the cases in which the punishment of death should be abolished, and other penalties substituted? 3. What should those penalties be?' The proposal of the central section was adopted.

Many sittings of the representatives, and an endless quantity of speech, were consumed upon a bill for establishing municipal authorities. The Crown wished to have the nomination of the burgo-masters and echevins; the chamber was desirous that they should be elective. The ministry divided against itself. M. M. Ernst and d'Huart, who, in the preceding August, had been transplanted, as very liberal men, from the opposition into the cabinet, to conciliate the chamber, voted for one part of the proposition, in order to keep their places, and against the Crown in another part of it, in order to redeem their character with their former associates. The debates were furious and abusive; such terms as "insolent," and "impertinent" being plentifully applied. The Crown carried its point with regard to the burgo-masters; but the popu lar election of the echevins was

decided against it. This, again, rendered unavoidable a collision between the two branches of the legislature; for the Senate would not fail to reject the clause which refused to the Crown the nomination of the echevins. Taking advantage of the approach of the period, when, by the constitution, one half of the chamber was to be renewed, the government cut short the dispute by suddenly proroguing the chambers on the 14th of May.

The new elections of one half of the chamber, which took place in June, did not increase the strength of the ministry. At Ghent the liberal candidates were all elected. At Liege, the ministerialists carried the day, but those who failed had a number of voters much more considerable than on former occasions; and in general the government majorities were by no means overwhelming. Two only of the former opposition deputies lost their election, while seven ministerial members were rejected.

The Chambers were convoked on the 11th August, but the communal bill was not again pressed forward. Their deliberations were chiefly bestowed on protecting the country from becoming the workshop of foreign agitators by means of an alien bill, and protecting the cotton manufacture by means of prohibitory duties. The alien bill gave the government power to compel any foreigner, whose conduct should endanger the public peace, to reside in a particular place assigned to him, or to remove him from one place to another, or to send him out of the kingdom.

It was vehemently opposed, not more as

being arbitrary and unconstitutional in itself, than as being, according to the representations of its enemies, a measure dictated by the king of the French, who was irritated at the escape of his own state prisoners from St. Pelagie, and offended at the fugitives having found refuge in Belgium. The language of some of the members, who spoke in favour of the bill, was not calculated to discredit these representations. Thus M. Nothomb thought the law absolutely necessary in the present state of France. If either the old dynasty should be restored in that country, or a republican government be established, neither of them would respect the independence of Belgium; they would both seek to regain the Rhine, as the boundary of France. "The enemies of Louis Philippe are ours also, and we ought to be on our guard against them. Defeated at Paris and Lyons, the seditious seek refuge in Belgium; they withdraw from the combat to take breath; receive them, and if they can, they will become proconsuls, to pay the debt of gratitude and hospitality." It was likewise urged, that Belgium by its geographical position was exposed to be inundated by the favourers of disorder or anarchy, when anything occurred in the neighbouring states; and therefore a law authorising their expulsion was reasonable. It no doubt left great scope for the exercise of arbitrary power; but it was impossible to specify before hand the cases in which expulsion would be justifiable. The ministers protested strongly that the bill had been introduced exclusively on national grounds, and not to please