Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

was under discussion, by a distinguished American statesman, to the effect that when England consummated that act of her commercial revolution, she dug the grave of her political power.' "He ended by moving an Address to the Crown, praying that measures might be adopted pursuant to the clause referred to in the Act of 12 & 13 Vict. cap. 29, for countervailing the disadvantages to which the British shipowner was now exposed.

Mr. Labouchere encountered Mr. Herries' arguments by others of a directly opposite description.

He began by reminding Mr. Herries, that he himself had been assailed by exactly similar representations when he was associated with Mr. Huskisson's reciprocity measures. He also quoted recent speeches by Mr. George Frederick Young, evincing that gentleman's hostility to reciprocity, and therefore his antagonism to Mr. Herries. Mr. Labouchere showed that there had been a corresponding decrease for 1850 in the exports and imports of the United States: but it was idle to take single years. The lowering of freights was explained by the fact, that the removal of restrictions on trading with third countries enabled vessels which made voyages in ballast to diminish the cost by carrying cargoes in that part of their voyage. The British Consul at Philadelphia, in a dispatch of the 12th of May, 1851, stated that out of 111 British ships entering the port in 1850, 18 came from a third country, which they could not have done before the repeal of the Navigation Laws. In the first four months of 1851, out of 50 British vessels entering Philadelphia, 15 brought cargoes from foreign ports VOL. XCIII.

[ocr errors]

from Cuba, Porto Rico, Pernambuco, Cadiz, and Palermo. He added Vessels from British America, which, after disposing of their cargoes of fish in the West Indies, generally came to this country in ballast, now bring sugar and molasses, and then return homewards with cargoes of breadstuffs." Mr. Labouchere thought the House would at once see how important the new trade was which had been given to the British shipping, by doing away with the absurd restrictions upon our trading with the United States. He could multiply cases, but it was unnecessary.

But for the relaxing of those restrictions, we should have lost the trade with California-a great and increasing trade. He saw that in one month no fewer than 18 ships had arrived from Australia with cargoes for San Francisco. Statistical returns established the fact, that the progress of shipbuilding continued; although there was some diminution in numbers, the average tonnage was larger. Already considerable progress had been made with negotiations for reciprocal treaties: we had obtained reciprocity with the Baltic powers, Holland, Sardinia, and the United States, and negotiations were at that very time proceeding with France, Spain, and Belgium.

Mr. G. F. Young followed up Mr. Herries' arguments, but carried them still further in favour of absolute restriction. He stated it to be the fact that in 1850, 1100 ships had left the United States for California, many of them with the intention of taking away our Eastern trade.

Mr. James Wilson supported Mr. Labouchere in an argumentative speech, which he fortified by

[L]

a considerable amount of statis- this-that a bonus should be given tical details.

Mr. Disraeli, after ridiculing the announcement that negotiations were proceeding with so small a number as three foreign States, admitted, at the same time, that the fact opposed a difficulty in the way of the present motion.

Ministers had announced, that under the clause in question they were engaged in active negotiations with three powers. Under these circumstances, he did not see how his right hon. friend the Member for Stamford could press to a division a motion which might interfere with those negotiations. Such being the case, he thought his right hon. friend, having obtained a full discussion of the question-(Cries of "Oh, oh!") He had no doubt that gentlemen on the back benches of the Ministerial side of the House, who were not in office, and therefore not responsible, were prepared for anything, even for interference with negotiations now in progress; but the Opposition had some responsibility. Therefore, when the Government virtually stated that the proposed amendment would interfere with negotiations with three powers, he could not see how, after that, the amendment could be proceeded with, and he hoped his right hon. friend would not press his amendment to a division.

Lord John Russell indulged in some sarcastic remarks upon this sudden discovery of an insuperable difficulty in the way of the motion. The noble Lord expressed his concurrence with those who had vindicated the policy of the Act of 1849.

Colonel Thompson declared his opinion, that this outcry for protection meant nothing else than

to the producer at the cost of the consumers, who were the taxpayers of this country. As for retaliation upon foreigners, it was like what was called, in vulgar phrase, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. There was a two-fold benefit arising from freedom of trade: there was the benefit of receiving his productions from the foreigner, which we enjoyed; and there would be the other benefit, if the foreigner would agree to accept it, of sending our productions to him. Because we could not obtain the latter of these benefits, we were asked by Mr. Herries and his friends to deprive ourselves of the former.

The motion of Mr. Herries was then, by leave, withdrawn.

An account has been given in the second chapter of this volume of the motion of Mr. Locke King at the beginning of the session, for leave to bring in a Bill to assimilate the franchise in counties to that of boroughs, and of the signal defeat sustained by the Government, by a majority of 100 against 52 in favour of the motion.

Mr. Locke King brought in his Bill pursuant to the leave thus given, and moved the second reading on the 2nd of April. He observed that the position of the advocates of the measure was greatly improved by the division which had taken place, amounting to nearly 2 to 1 in favour of the principle. Even Lord John Russell had acknowledged the deficiencies of the Reform Act, and Sir James Graham, after being present at the discussion, had abstained from voting. The duty of legislating on the subject, Mr. King considered to be urgent. The House had not even an outline of the

plan contemplated by the Ministry, and unless that plan were an extensive one, it would not satisfy the country. Mr. King read statements, showing that while the constituencies of the boroughs had increased, those of the counties had diminished, and he urged the House to assent to a measure founded on just principles, moderate in its extent, and simple in its provisions.

Mr. P. Howard supported the Bill.

Mr. F. Maule hoped Mr. King would not press this measure, which, he admitted, had been undertaken by him bona fide. He concurred in what had been said by Lord J. Russell, that the class comprehended by the Bill was perfectly worthy to enjoy the franchise; he believed that the time had come when an extension of the franchise might be conceded; and the noble Lord had most distinctly given the House and the country to understand that, had not other measures of importance intervened, he should have introduced this session a measure for the improvement of the Reform Act. He deprecated a bit by bit system of reform; he warned Reformers that their measures could be carried only by union among themselves, and that there was a party in that House which did not recognise the necessity of reform, and was opposed to the party by which measures of reform had been carried. He asked them to place themselves under the banner of one who had led them to the greatest of those measures, and from whom they could not withdraw their confidence without postponing further reform for an indefinite period.

Sir Benjamin Hall was inclined to accept the pledge now so dis

tinctly given, and leave the matter in the hands of the Government. A majority of the House had affirmed the principle of the Bill, and he thought it would be unwise to force on a division which, judging from the aspect of the House, it was evident would be adverse to the Bill.

Mr. Bright had listened to the speech of Mr. Maule with considerable satisfaction; but Lord John Russell, he remarked, had not indulged the House with anything so distinct. He had admitted that the class was entitled to the franchise, but had, at the same time, suggested constitutional reasons why a franchise suited for boroughs was not suited to counties. He (Mr. Bright) thought the House might discuss this Bill in order to see whether it should not form part of the proposed general measure. This was not a question of principle, as regarded the suffrage, but merely one of limit. If the noble Lord would frankly say what kind of proposition he intended to submit to the House whether large and generous, or small and peddling-and give some outline of the principles upon which it would be founded, he had no objection to the Bill being withdrawn, or even negatived, on the express understanding that the question would be considered in a generous spirit.

Mr. Clay, Colonel Romilly, Mr. Pigott, and other members, joined in advising Mr. Locke King not to press for a division. Mr. Hume dissented from this view. He said he had been too long in the House to trust to Ministerial professions. They had been called upon to unite, but who had divided the Reformers but Her Majesty's Ministers? Mr. T. Dun

combe also expressed his distrust of the reforming professions of the Government.

Lord John Russell put it to the House whether it was advisable to adopt one portion of electoral reform now and another portion hereafter, instead of having one entire scheme for the extension of the suffrage at once before the House. He had been asked to give some disclosure of the nature of the changes he intended to propose, but he thought it inexpedient now to do so. Considering the advances made by the country since 1831, and the defects inseparable from any great legislative measure, he repeated that he was of opinion that it would be desirable at the very commencement of the next session to consider a measure for the extension of the franchise.

Mr. Disraeli briefly defended his party from imputations which had been made against it. He repudiated the description of the Opposition given by Mr. Fox Maule, in the course of his almost convulsive effort to reconstruct a Reform party," as being banded against every species of Parliamentary Reform;" and while in a broad view accepting the Act of 1831 as a 66 great settlement," he yet entirely protested against what was popularly understood in a political sense as the principle of "finality." However he pledged himself to oppose any measure of Parliamentary reform flagrantly having for its object the retaining and confirming in power of some political section; or the displacement of the proper territorial influence and power which he believed to constitute the best security for our liberties, and the best means of retaining that stable

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Another movement in the direction of Parliamentary Reform, and attended with very similar results, was made by Mr. Henry Berkeley, who, late in the session, renewed his annual proposal for the adoption of the Ballot at Elections. The hon. Member, in support of his motion, recapitulated the usual and well-known arguments on the necessity of protecting voters against intimidation and undue influence, and he replied to Lord John Russell's assertion that the present electoral system "worked well" by asking how that could be said of any system which deterred one-third of the electors from recording their votes, which gave to certain peers the power of returning 98 Members of Parliament by direct interference, and coerced agricultural voters like a flock of sheep. But even supposing that it did work well, a good end was effected by means the most abominable and unconstitutional. In illustration of the actual working of the system, Mr. Berkeley drew attention to certain transactions at elections which had occurred since his motion was made in the last year, whence he deduced evidence of the prevalence of intimidation, a greater evil in the system than corruption itself, and one which pressed with peculiar severity upon

the agricultural tenantry, many of whom he described as degraded into actual slavery. Mr. Berkeley relieved the details of the subject by several humorous illustrations and anecdotes, and concluded with an appeal to high authorities in support of the ballot, and by calling upon Lord John Russell to reconsider this question for the sake of the people of England.

Mr. Ellis seconded the motion, and bore testimony to the great amount of coercion and intimidation practised by both political parties upon all descriptions of voters, but especially upon the tenant-farmers.

Mr. Hume considered that the arguments of Mr. Berkeley were unanswerable, and impressed upon the Government the importance of granting a concession which he believed was essential to the future welfare of the country. The motion, however, he said, aimed at only a part of his object; he had, therefore, moved as an amendment, to extend the elective franchise to all men of full age rated to the poor; to limit the duration of Parliament to three years; and to make the proportion of representa tives more consistent with the amount of population and property. He urged at some length the expediency of these several changes, expatiating upon the evil consequences which had arisen and would arise from delaying them, and he warned the noble Lord that unless the ballot formed a part of his scheme of reform next session it would not give satisfaction. As it was desirable to obtain the opinion of the House upon this question of the ballot, he should not move his amendment, but support the original motion.

Captain Scobell, adverting to

the means which had been employed in the late election at which he had been returned for Bath, said he could not, as an honest man, abstain from declaring on this first occasion of his addressing the House, the absolute justice, expediency, and necessity of sheltering men in the exercise of rights which the constitution gives them. If any better plan than the ballot could be produced, let it be substituted, but none having been suggested, they were bound, as practical and honest men, to carry that out.

The House having divided, Mr. Berkeley's motion was carried against the Government by 87 to 50.

The Bill of which the introduction had thus been sanctioned, was brought in and read a first time, but made no further progress.

A case of flagrant corruption which was brought to light this session in the borough of St. Albans, led to the adoption of the same summary mode of proceeding which had before been applied to certain other constituencies proved to have been tainted with extensive bribery. A petition had been presented, complaining of the return of the sitting Member, Mr. Bell, on the ground of bribery, and was referred in the usual manner to a Select Committee. But all the efforts of that tribunal to prosecute their investigation into the proceedings at the election were baffled by the parties implicated. Several of the witnesses who were produced declined to answer questions tending to criminate themselves, while others, from whom inconvenient disclosures were apprehended, were clandestinely conveyed away out of the reach of the Committee, after

« EdellinenJatka »