Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

connected with the agricultural interest, among whom were the Marquis of Granby, Mr. Wodehouse, Sir John Tyrell, and Mr. Bankes, enlarged upon the disastrous effects of the policy of the late and present Ministers upon the classes connected with land. Mr. M. Gibson animadverted on the inconsistency of the country gentlemen in opposing the Government in those measures of economy and retrenchment which tended to relieve the tenant farmers, for whose interests so much anxiety was professed.

Mr. Hume complained that the Speech from the Throne was engrossed with foreign affairs, to the exclusion of domestic topics, as if we were the police officers of the world. He then touched upon the various grievances of the United Kingdom and the Colonies, which he ascribed mainly to the limited basis of the representation in this country; and concluded by moving certain amendments with reference to the rebellions in Ceylon and the Cape of Good Hope, and the discontents in British Guiana, the Mauritius, and other British Colonies, also to the excessive amount of taxation, and to the state of the representation in Parliament.

The amendments were seconded by Mr. Bankes and supported by Mr. S. Crawford, but were ultimately negatived without a division.

On the same evening some resolutions for regulating the proceed ings of the House, with a view to the acceleration of public business, were proposed, pursuant to notice, by Lord J. Russell. These resolutions, so far as they altered the previously existing practice, were mainly founded upon the Report of

a Committee of the House of Commons appointed in the previous Session for the purpose of devising some improvements in Parliamentary procedure, the necessity for which had been experienced in the obstructions and delays which too frequently arose in the progress of legislation. The Committee after taking a good deal of evidence, including that of M. Guizot relating to the practice of the French Assembly, of some members of the Senate of the United States, of the Speaker of the House of Commons, and other eminent individuals, embodied their conclusions in a series of practical recommendations, having for their object to abridge and simplify the technical rules of Parliamentary practice. The Sessional Resolutions now proposed by Lord J. Russell, although they fell short in some respects of the views of the Committee, and manifested a more tenacious regard for ancient routine than many persons might have desired, were calculated, as far as they went, to diminish the cumbrous formalities that previously prevailed, and to facilitate the despatch of public business. The particular Resolutions which may be characterized as substantially new were (as afterwards amended) to the following effect:

"That when any bill is presented by a Member, pursuant to an order of the House, or brought from the Lords, the question that it be 'read a first time,' or that it be 'printed,' shall be decided without debate or amendment.

"That when a bill has been partly considered in Committee (except Supply or Ways and Means), and the Chairman has reported progress and asked leave to sit

[blocks in formation]

in reply. This proposition produced an animated discussion.

Lord John Russell opposed the motion, observing that the same proposal had been made in the Committee, and it was thought inexpedient to adopt it. Possibly there might come a time when it would be imperative upon the House to impose such a restraint upon the garrulity of Members; but he did not see how a positive rule could be laid down, making an exemption in favour of some Members, that would do justice to all. It would be better to allow no exception whatever. He hoped that the discretion of Members would render any restriction unnecessary.

Sir R. Peel observed that it seemed to be the general impression in the House that there was a tendency amongst its Members to make speeches of undue length, and if every Member would act upon that impression, it would be infinitely better than to lay down a dry rule. He had heard speeches from Mr. Plunkett, Mr. Canning, and other Members of the House, in which there was not a redundant word, and of which such a rule would have deprived the House and the public.

The resolution was also opposed by Sir R. Inglis, but supported with much earnestness by Mr. Cobden. On a division it was rejected by 96 to 64.

CHAPTER II.

Repeal of the Navigation Laws-Allusion to that Measure in the Queen's Speech Mr. Labouchere moves a Resolution on the Subject in Committee of the whole House on the 14th of February - His Speech, containing an Outline of the Measure-Observations of Mr. Herries, Mr. H. Drummond, Mr. Ricardo, and other Members-The Bill brought in-On the Motion for the Second Reading on the 9th March, Mr. Herries moves that it be deferred to that Day Six Months -Speeches of Mr. J. Wilson, the Marquis of Granby, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Henley, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Labouchere The Second Reading is carried by 266 to 210-On going into Committee Mr. Labouchere announces an important Alteration in the Bill relative to the Coasting Trade-Remarks of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Herries, and Mr. Disraeli-Debate on the Third Reading-Mr. Herries again moves the Rejection of the Bill-Speeches of Mr. McGregor, Sir James Graham (who declares strongly in favour of the Free-Trade Policy), Mr. T. Baring, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Disraeli-On a Division, Mr. Herries' Amendment is lost by 276 to 214-In the Lords the Second Reading is moved by the Marquis of Lansdowne on the 7th May-The Debate is continued, by Adjournment, for Two Nights-Lord Brougham declares himself opposed to the Bill, which he characterizes as having no connection with Free Trade-Speeches of Earl Granville, Lord Colchester, who moves that the Second Reading be on that Day Six Months, Lord Ellenborough, the Duke of Argyll, the Earl of Carlisle, Lords Nelson, Wharncliffe, and Bruce, Earl Talbot, the Marquis of Londonderry, Lord Stanley, and Earl Grey-On a Division, the Second Reading is voted by a Majority of 10-Important consequences of this Division, and Critical Position of the Ministry-On the Third Reading being moved, the Earl of Ellenborough renews the Opposition, and a desultory Debate takes place, after which the Peers adverse to the Bill withdraw from the House, and the Bill is read a Third Time-The Bishop of Oxford moves a Clause, by way of Rider, with the object of discouraging the Slave Trade-After a good deal of Discussion it is rejected by 23 to 9, and the Bill is passed. AGRICULTURAL BURTHENS:-Tactics of the Protection Party-Mr. Disraeli proposes a Motion on the subject of Local Taxation, which occupies the House of Commons Four Nights

Terms of his Resolution-His Speech - Mr. Hume moves an Amendment-Principal Speakers in favour of the Resolution, Mr.

Christopher, Mr. K. Seymer, Mr. W. Miles, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Cayley, and the Marquis of Granby-Against it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. C. Lewis, Lord Norreys, Mr. Bright, Lord John Russell, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and Mr. CobdenAfter a Reply from Mr. Disraeli, a Division takes place, in which Mr. Hume's Amendment is negatived by 394 to 70, and Mr. Disraeli's Resolution by 280 to 189.

perhaps the most important -measure of the Session of 1849, was the Bill introduced by the Government for the repeal of the Navigation Laws. As we have related in the last volume of this work, the attempt to legislate on the subject in the preceding Session met with obstruction and delays which caused the Government unwillingly to postpone the settlement of the question for another year. Her Majesty's Speech on the opening of the present Session had earnestly recommended the subject of the Navigation Laws to the consideration of Parliament, and the Ministers of the Crown prepared themselves to redeem the pledge, by introducing their Bill at an early period. On the 14th of February the House of Commons, on the motion of Mr. Labouchere, the President of the Board of Trade, having resolved itself into Committee on the Navigation Laws, the right honourable Gentleman proposed the following resolution:

"That it is expedient to remove the restrictions which prevent the free carriage of goods by sea to and from the United Kingdom and the British possessions abroad; and to amend the laws regulating the coasting trade of the United Kingdom, subject, nevertheless, to such control by Her Majesty in Council as may be necessary; and also to amend the laws for the registration of ships and seamen."

MrLabouchere expressed his satisfaction that he was able to bring forward the subject at a time which would afford the House ample opportunity for discussing its merits. The consideration which it underwent last year had cleared away many preliminary difficulties, and the interval had given the country and its colonies time to view the subject in all its aspects. He had stated upon the former occasion that the Navigation Laws rested upon three fundamental principles;

they secured to this country the monopoly of the colonial trade; the long voyage trade, and the carrying or indirect European trade. Of the first a great part was gone, and it was the height of injustice to refuse to the colonies, under such circumstances, the abolition of restrictions of which they had always complained, and which it was true wisdom not to exasperate them by delaying. Documents had been laid before the House which illustrated the grievances which Canada in particular suffered from the Navigation Laws; and the right honourable Gentleman urged, with great force, the impediments which these laws offered to an advantageous trade between Canada and the American territory on the borders of the lakes. In regard to the long voyage trade the system was inconsistent, and inverted the true principles of commerce, whilst the value of the close system in respect

to the indirect trade depended upon its being confined to our selves; whereas the policy pursued by other countries showed that they were aware of the injustice of this one-sided system, and would retaliate it. Was it not wise, then, by a timely concession to equitable demands, to place these laws upon a rational footing, exchanging a narrow for an enlarged and liberal policy? He still proposed to reserve to the Queen in Council a power to re-enact the restrictions, wholly or in part, with reference to any countries which should adopt a policy prejudicial to British interests; and to allow a British register to a foreign vessel British owned and British manned-subsequent information having confirmed his conviction that English ship-builders had nothing to fear from this competition. The wages of shipwrights at New York were not lower than in London; but Mr. Money Wigram had stated, that whereas a shipwright in the United States gave a whole day's work for his wages, in London he worked as a combination man, and for that mischievous system competition was the true remedy. He likewise adhered to the alteration he had proposed last year, by which shipowners would be exempted from the obligation of taking a certain number of apprentices. The only material departure in the present from the former resolutions related to the coasting trade. The opponents of the measure of last year were of two classes; one, of whose sentiments Mr. Herries was the exponent, objected altogether to its principle; the other class avowed a belief that the time had come when the fundamental principle of the Navigation Laws must

be revised, but took an exception to parts of the plan. Mr. Gladstone, for example, had insisted upon the disadvantage and impolicy of retaining the monopoly of our coasting trade, a relaxation of which might purchase an equiva lent in the coasting trade of America. He (Mr. Labouchere) had found it difficult to meet this argument on the one hand, and on the other to obviate the alarm which our coast population would feel at the participation of foreigners in their trade; and to guard against the risk to which it would expose the revenue. He proposed, therefore, not an abolition, but a modification, of the restrictions upon foreigners engaging in our coasting trade, still confining the trade from port to port of the United Kingdom to British vessels. Thus, an English or a foreign vessel, sailing from a British port, bound to a foreign port, might touch at another British port, carry goods there, and take goods for a third British port; or an American ship, for example, bound from the United States to London, might discharge part of her cargo at Southampton, take other goods, and go on to London, but not trade to and fro between port and port; and the vessels must not be under 100 tons burden. The right honourable Gentleman added, that he had had the assurance of Mr. Bancroft that the Government of the United States would meet this relaxation of our laws by a reciprocal concession. Bills upon the subjects of light dues, the merchant seamen's fund, and the measurement of tonnage, which would be the complement of this great measure, would be introduced as soon as it became law. The right honourable Gentleman

« EdellinenJatka »