Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

ductions which would give us a considerable amount of saving, without, in our opinion, impairing our force below that which was necessary for the efficiency of the public service and necessary for the defence of our various colonies. Whether we have done wisely in that respect, whether the reductions we propose to make come within the principles I have stated, -whether we have carried them too far, or have not gone far enough, will be proper questions for this House to consider, when the estimates come before them, and when my right honourable friends charged with the respective departments shall state their views of the exigency of the public service, and of the amount of force required. But these reductions have been considered on the principle of what is wanted and what can be spared from the service for the present year, and they have not been taken with reference to any particular past year, or on the plan of squaring the expenditure with that year."

The noble Lord then went on to express his earnest hope that, notwithstanding the denunciations contained in Mr. Disraeli's Amendment, the various nations of Europe, however they might settle their internal affairs, would in process of time, and by the progress of negotiation, be brought round to the conclusion that war must be injurious to them all, and that there is no sufficient cause why one state should be the aggressor of another. If such sentiments should prevail, each Power being allowed to make its own arrangements with respect to its own internal constitution, there would be no reason why the reductions of the present year should not be carried out in future years. It would be exceedingly

unwise to make sudden and sweeping reductions; but gradual retrenchments, made with a view to a wise economy, would be for the interest not only of this country but of every other country in Europe. "Now, Sir," continued Lord J. Russell," I do not contend that there is no cause for anxiety in the present state of the world. I am far from thinking that those revolutions which took place last year have run their course, and that each state is now in the enjoyment of assured security and tranquillity. I rejoice as much as any man, that the ancient empire of Austria, an old ally of this country, should have been recovering her splendour, and should have shown her strength in so conspicuous a manner but many questions with respect to the Austrian Empire, of great difficulty-questions with respect to the internal constitution of Prussia-questions with regard to the formation of what the honourable gentleman called an Empire without an Emperor-are still unsettled, and we are not sure what may be the ultimate event. In fact, there has been, within the last year, first an excessive apprehension, caused by the events which had taken place; then there has been rising up here and there some wild theory, pretending to found the happiness of states and of mankind upon visionary maxims and unsound speculations, which can never secure the welfare of any state or country. We have, indeed, seen that those hopes were unwise, and that the issue did not answer the expectations which had been formed in the case of many countries of Europe. No one could say that events might not, at some unforeseen moment, take a course unpropitious for the maintenance

of European peace. But still I do think, that the time which has elapsed since the first outbreak of these revolutions has tended to make men consider more soberly what is the value of real freedom, and what is the value of peace in the world, to be set against political change, and how much ought to be sacrificed to secure those objects.

"In the meantime, Sir, I do appeal against this proposed disarmament, not by any carping at the particular terms which may be used, nor by going into a minute defence of every act of the Government, but as feeling generally what has been happening around us, and what is our present state. We have gone through a commercial convulsion, arising chiefly from a wild spirit of speculation. Is our trade at the present moment shaken to the dust, or is it true that it is reviving? Is it true or not that it is assuming a healthy tone, and may we not hope that it will take its usual course to a state of restored prosperity? We have put down what, in spite of the honourable Member for Meath, I must call an insurrection in Ireland: tranquillity has been restored. Has this object been effected by any sanguinary measures? has it been restored by arming one class of the population against another, and by fixing upon Ireland a permanent state of civil war, which would be incalculably worse than a transitory insurrection? I reply boldly that it has not. I reply that my noble friend at the head of the Government of Ireland showed vigour and energy; he showed also that which is still more rare than vigour and energy-he showed singular judgment, temperance, and forbearance; he showed himself averse

from the first to anything like setting class against class, or the infliction of sanguinary punishments. Well, Sir, I say again, this country has been menaced by those who, as in other countries, would, for the sake of plunder, have disturbed the whole order of society. I ask, have not they been defeated in their machinations? have not they been defeated by the usual exercise of law, as regular, and at the same time as firm and merciful in its proceedings, as was consistent with the constitution of this country? (Cheers.) I ask, has this country been involved in foreign hostilities

has there ever been any danger of it? Has not peace in Europe been preserved by this country; and, as regards other powers, have we not shown our disposition at least to guarantee terms which would be honourable to the contending parties, rather than to mix in the fray and excite those various powers to conflict and war? If I can say that these things are true, -if I am not to be contradicted as to the facts, (admitting, as I do, that with respect to the greater portion of them the highest praise is to be given to the energies, the prudence, and the wisdom of this mighty people,) yet I do say, if such be the results, that the Government which has been at the head of affairs at least deserves this-not to be condemned on the first night of a session." (Cheers.)

Mr. Edmund Burke Roche, who next addressed the House, disapproved of any proposals to limit the area of poor-law taxation in Ireland, or to make a more stringent law of settlement. The true cheap government for Ireland would be to do her justice, and develop her industrial resources.

Mr. Hume would, at that hour,

only notice some omissions in the Speech. Government had promised him that during the recess they would consider measures for equalizing and lightening the burthens of taxation; yet the subject was not even mooted in the Speech or the Address. Was there to be any investigation into the taxation of the country? In reference to Mr. Disraeli's protest against concessions on the point of popular representation, he asked if Ministers meant to take their stand on the present representation, and refuse all concessions? He wished also to know what were the views of the Government on the subject of our colonies; the late management of some of which had been most disgraceful. Not one of the acts which had driven the Americans to rebellion had been characterized by half the atrocity and tyranny of the arbitrary proceedings which had taken place in British Guiana and Ceylon. ("Hear, hear!") He considered that the noble Earl at the head of the Colonies had forfeited every claim to support, and that Her Majesty's Government should at once remove him. (Cheers.)

The House divided on Mr. Grattan's amendment, and it was negatived by 200 to 12. The further discussion of Mr. Disraeli's motion having been adjourned, the debate was opened the next evening by Mr. Stafford, who addressed himself in the first instance to the agricultural part of the question, and advocated a return to a moderate system of import duties, not merely for the sake of protection, but as a necessary means of keeping up our establishments. He contended that the framing of the Budget and the Estimates, upon a principle hostile to protection, was VOL. XCI.

not compatible with the condition of the country and public credit. He then condemned the course which the Government proposed to pursue respecting the Irish Poor Law, in shrinking from the question themselves, and throwing it upon a Committee, to be worried by the Irish Members of it, inferring from this course that the Cabinet was not itself united upon this question. He glanced cursorily at the other topics involved in the amendment, to which he gave his support.

Sir W. Somerville justified the course of the Government in referring the subject of the Irish Poor Law to a Committee, whereby they had only redeemed a pledge made last session. He amused the House by exposing some of the exaggerations it had heard as to the "ruin' inflicted upon Irish landlords by a 7d. poor rate.

[ocr errors]

After a few words in vindication of himself from Mr. Grattan,

Sir J. Walsh urged that the evils of the Irish Poor Law were pressing, and could not wait the slow remedy of a Committee. Passing, by a rapid transition, to the intervention of the British Government early last year in the affairs of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, by the sending an English fleet to the Bay of Naples, he dwelt at some length upon that subject, and upon the Italian policy of Lord Palmerston. Returning to Ireland, the honourable Baronet paid a high tribute to the admirable temper, forbearance, and firmness with which Lord Clarendon had administered the government of that country, but concluded by declaring his concurrence with the amendment.

Mr. Monckton Milnes, on the other hand, repudiated the amendment as containing a censure—nay, [C]

an attack-upon the Government, which no part of their policy or conduct deserved. The hostile criticism of Mr. Disraeli upon the state of our foreign relations rested upon no evidence, for none had yet been furnished; and he conjured the House not to condemn in so solemn a manner the peaceful policy of Her Majesty's Ministers, which had tended not only to avert war from this country, but to arrest its march on the continent. The honourable Member stated the result of his own personal observations in the States of Lombardy, and drew a deplorable picture of the fruits of Austrian military domination in Italy.

Lord Mandeville spoke in favour of the amendment, directing his observations, which were imperfectly heard, chiefly against the injurious effects of our legislation towards the colonies.

Mr. Horsman observed that one paragraph of Mr. Disraeli's amend ment was founded upon the assumption that the experience of the last three years had verified his predictions of the effects of free trade; and if he (Mr. Horsman) voted for the amendment, he must, in fact, recant his vote in 1846, which he was not prepared to do. And as to our foreign policy, if he concurred in the amendment, he must abandon all hopes of a reduction of our expenditure. At the same time, no one could say that the state of our foreign relations was satisfactory to Parliament or creditable to the country. For this, however, he did not condemn this or that Minister; much of the evil lay at the door of Parliament itself. Unless Parliament exercised a more vigilant control over the Foreign and Colonial Depart ments, and exposed their doings to

more publicity, it would neglect its duty.

Mr. Scott likewise condemned the system of the Colonial Department, which he characterized as a Star-Chamber Council.

Colonel Sibthorp directed one of his usual philippics against the Treasury Bench, accusing the Ministers-who sustained the attack with great composure-of underhanded conduct, duplicity, and trickery.

Sir De Lacy Evans dissented from the views respecting our foreign relations professed by Mr. Disraeli, and considered that the policy of Lord Palmerston had, in the main, been most successful.

Captain Harris could not support an Address which, in most of its paragraphs, misrepresented facts, without compromising his respect for honesty and sincerity.

Mr. B. Cochrane perceived indications in the Speech from the Throne, as well as in that of the noble lord, of the Government being influenced by a pressure from without, and by a fear of the honourable Member for the North Riding, who in his speeches meant something more than mere retrenchment; his object was to organize a force that should override the Legislature, and dictate to the House of Commons.

Mr. Bankes, with reference to Lord J. Russell's appeal ad misericordiam, against a condemnation on the first night of the session, observed, that if great interests, like those of the Colonies and of the national agriculture, were omitted in the Speech from the Throne, it was the duty of the House to pass such a condemnation. The honourable Member then referred to the insult offered by the Court of Madrid to this country in the person of Sir Henry Bulwer, and

maintained that the aspect of our foreign relations, generally, afforded no better ground for congratulation than the stagnant state of our commerce and manufactures.

Mr. Urquhart, amidst considerable interruption, spoke upon various points of our foreign policy, more particularly relating to Sicily and Naples.

Lord Palmerston said, that the real meaning of the amendment, and the real object of the movers, was to record their sentiments against the doctrine of free trade and the repeal of the Corn Laws, and to trick the House into giving an opinion on the pretence of an amendment to an Address. The noble lord justified the generality of the terms employed in the Speech and Address; at the same time he insisted that our foreign policy, which had succeeded in maintaining peace, did afford matter of congratulation. The noble lord explained the principles upon which our intercourse with France had been conducted, bearing testimony to the good faith and public spirit of the different Governments of that country since February 1848. He claimed credit for the success of the mediations of the British Government between various foreign States; he showed the difficulties which beset our mediation between Denmark and Germany, and detailed the circumstances attending our mediation in respect to Austrian Lombardy, and between Naples and Sicily. He denied that any instructions had been given to Admiral Parker to stop the expedition to Sicily; but the enormities committed by Neapolitans revolted the English and French commanders, who on

their own responsibility interfered to prevent those atrocious proceedings, and he hoped that interference would lead to an honourable adjustment between Naples and Sicily. Yet the Government were to be condemned for their foreign policy before the papers were produced, perhaps because it was was expected that if the papers were waited for they would vindicate Ministers. With respect to the Spanish "insult," he was not prepared to go to war with Spain on that account. Addressing himself, then, to the observations of Mr. Horsman, whose curiosity to study the dispatches of the Foreign Office had been baulked, he reminded him that the conduct of foreign negotiations belongs to the Crown, not to the House of Commons, and to subject them to publicity and to a popular assembly would be the surest way to render a rupture unavoidable. The Ministers stood be fore the House as the promoters of peace, who had assiduously laboured to prevent war; they were accused by the advocates of war; and he appealed to the House to decide between them.

The Marquis of Granby moved the adjournment of the debate.

After a short discussion between Mr. Herries, Lord J. Russell, and the Marquis of Granby, the House divided, when the numbers were For the adjournment Against it

Majority

80 221

141

Mr. Disraeli thereupon withdrew his amendment, and the Address, as proposed, was agreed to.

Some further discussion took place upon bringing up the Report on the Address. Several Members

« EdellinenJatka »