Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

tion of the treaty. In a very clear exposition of the 7th and 8th articles he showed that the case of the paper-duty was governed by the 7th, which provided for the admission into the United Kingdom of merchandise imported from France at a rate of duty equal to the Excise duty which is or shall be imposed upon articles of the same description in the United Kingdom." Besides the honourable obligation contracted under the treaty and considerations of expediency, the House was bound, he thought, in justice to consumers and other manufacturers, to put an end to a particular monopoly by adopting the Resolution.

Mr. Norris opposed the Resolu

tion.

Mr. Henley maintained that the Attorney-General had not met the arguments of Sir H. Cairns. He (Mr. Henley) put more faith in men's acts than in their words, and the Government had not only acted themselves, but had made the House act in a different manner in the case of hops, and the Attorney-General did not venture to touch that question. He could not understand, he said, why the Government should induce the House to put different constructions upon the treaty at different times, and he thought they ought not to place the House in so inconsistent a position. He should support the amendment.

Lord J. Russell said the construction put by Sir H. Cairns upon the treaty was subtle, refined, and scholastic, but it was not its plain meaning. The common-sense meaning of the 7th article-which might, perhaps, have been better worded-was that when articles like these, subject to Excise duty here, were im

ported from France, they should pay a Customs' duty equal to the Excise duty. The argument against the Resolution founded upon policy was the same he had often heard,-that free-trade was an excellent thing, but a particular article was always to be excepted from its operation. At the end of a series of successful legis lation for forty years upon freetrade principles, the House, he hoped, would not be frightened by the hobgoblins conjured up by Mr. Puller. Upon the ground of obligation under the treaty, and upon that of wisdom and policy, he called upon the House not to exhibit to the world the discreditable spectacle of an attempt to escape from our engagements.

Mr. Disraeli pointed out what he regarded as inconsistencies on the part of the Government, and thought it very extraordinary that on the 6th of August a jaded House of Commons should be called upon to consider a decision regarding a particular branch of industry, and that a great Parlia mentary struggle should take place. What was the cause of this strange proceeding? It was supposed that the House was bound to entertain this question under and by virtue of the Commercial Treaty with France. This question then arose,-had we entered into this engagement? Upon this point the arguments of Sir H. Cairns had not been met. The socalled treaty, he insisted, was an unfinished negotiation, and there was nothing unjust or unreasonable in telling the Government that it was unnecessary to decide this question with precipitation, but that it would be wise and expedient to delay the decision,

and accept the policy recommended by Mr. Puller.

Lord Palmerston observed that the question for the Committee was whether they should or should not fulfil the conditions of a treaty with a foreign Power, and pursue those principles of free-trade adopted by all sides of the House. He was surprised that there should be any doubt as to the construction of the 7th article of the treaty, than which, in his opinion, nothing could be plainer. The House had unanimously voted an address approving the treaty, and the same House was now called upon to evade the execution of one of its

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM-Lord John Russell moves for leave to bring in a Bill to reform the representation on the 1st of March-Little interest is manifested on the occasion Statement of the proposed enactments-Remarks made by various members—Mr. Cardwell afterwards introduces a Bill for Ireland, and the Lord Advocate one for Scotland-The debate on the second reading of the English Bill is begun on the 19th March, and continued at intervals by adjournment till the 3rd of May-Mr. Disraeli commences the debate, in which most of the leading members on both sides take part-Summary of the principal speeches-The measure is warmly opposed by the Conservative party, defended by the Ministers, and supported, though with many criticisms on its deficiencies, by the more advanced Liberal members-It is closed by a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Bill is finally read a second time without a division-While this debate is proceeding, Earl Grey enters on the subject in the House of Lords, and moves the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the probable increase of electors from an extension of the franchise and other electoral statistics-Speeches of Earl Grey, the Duke of Argyll, Earl of Derby, and Earl Granville - The motion is agreed to and a Committee named-On the Reform Bill going into Committee on the 4th of June Lord John Russell states the course that the Government propose to take upon it- Remarks of Mr. Disraeli-Mr. Mackinnon moves an amendment affirming the expediency of awaiting the results of the Census of 1861 before proceeding to legislateRemarks of Sir George Lewis and other members on this motion-Sir J. Fergusson moves the adjournment of the debate- Speeches of Sir George Grey, Lord John Manners, Mr. Watlington, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Bright, Sir H. Cairns, Lord Palmerston, Mr. Disraeli, and Lord John Russell-On a division the Ministers obtain a majority of 21-Delays and impediments to the further progress of the Bill The abandonment is anticipated by public opinion-On the 11th of June Lord John Russell announces the resolution of the Government to throw up the measure, and states their reasons for doing so · Observations of Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Bright -Some members of the Liberal party express disappointment at the withdrawal of the Bill, but the House and the public generally approre- THE BALLOT- Mr. H. Berkeley brings on his annual motion on this subject on the 20th of March His speech- Speeches of Mr. Marsh, Mr. C. Fortescue, Mr. Lawson, and Lord Palmerston-The motion is negatived by 254 to

149.

VOL. CII.

[H]

ON

[ocr errors]

N the 1st of March the promised scheme of Parliamentary Reform which was to signalize the year of 1860, was announced to the House of Commons by the same statesman, and on the anniversary of the same day, as that famous measure which remodelled our Parliamentary Constitution, 29 years before. But a great contrast was exhibited by the two occasions in regard to the public interest with which the measures were anticipated and the reception which they met with. Instead of the keen excitement and eager interest which made the era of the Reform Bill a memorable crisis in English his tory, indifference and apathy were now the prevailing sentiments of the public mind; agitation had utterly failed to create even sentiment of curiosity on the subject; and when Lord John Russell rose to explain the outlines of the proposed scheme, his auditors manifested a lack of interest which seemed to exercise in return an influence on the speaker, and deprived his address of that animation and spirit which on other occasions had given effect to his oratory. Before he entered into the subject, he disclaimed entirely a wish to introduce a new Constitution; and, if he now proposed to amend the representation of the people, it was not, he said, to be understood as a concession that the Reform Act of 1832 had failed; on the contrary, he believed that no measure had so few faults. What the Government proposed to do was, in a simple manner, to supply the omissions and remedy the defects of that Act. They proposed to add to 101. occupation franchise in counties a security that would make it a bona fide franchise;

that where the land was attached to a house, not being a dwellinghouse, the building should not be of a less annual value than 57. The next question was as to lowering the borough franchise. The Act of 1832 was framed not to exclude the working classes, but to open the franchise wider to the middle classes; but it would be a great evil to continue much longer the practical exclusion of a great number of the working classes, who, by their qualifications and character, were competent to exercise the franchise freely and independently, and, in his opinion, it would add strength to the Constitution if a certain number of those classes qualified for it should be admitted to the franchise. He thought that the Legislature ought not to wait for an agitation that would force demands upon Parliament; that if the desire for their franchise by these classes was founded upon a fair appreciation of their own qualities, and it could be conceded with safety to the Constitution, the concession should not be delayed because there had not been any agitation. In another respect the Government had thought it on the whole better to make the measure as simple as possible; they had not introduced franchises not known to the Constitution, or what had been termed "fancy franchises." What they proposed was to extend the borough franchise now enjoyed. One question had been frequently discussed with reference to that franchise,-namely, whether it should be a rated frauchise. He stated reasons why the Government had thought it would not be advisable, but, on the contrary, practically inconvenient, to have a rated franchise. The next question was, what should be the

England.]

HISTORY.

gross annual rental, and Lord John, taking the number of electors for cities and boroughs now on the register at 440,000, showed the respective numbers that would be added if the occupation franchise was reduced to 91., 8., 7., and 6.; the latter sum would give an aggregate number of electors in the cities and boroughs in England and Wales of 634,000, which he thought not an extravagant addition. With regard to the character of the persons who would be admitted, the accounts from the different cities and boroughs varied extremely; in some rents were low, in others, high; but he believed that a 61. franchise would include a great number of the working classes; that the number would not be extravagant, and that their admission would be a great benefit to the Constitution. He now came to another question, totally different. He believed it was quite necessary that, besides great counties and large cities and manufacturing towns, smaller places should return members to Parliament; and that, if the Government was to be carried on in that House, it was desirable to have more than the two classes of representatives for counties and for great cities, and no plan of Reform had proceeded upon a differen: principle. Having laid down this general rule, and treating the subject practically, there was a question which concerned the present state of the House. When the Reform Bill of 1831 was introduced, there was no difficulty in abolishing the title to return members enjoyed by certain boroughs with few or no electors. Without going now into the question as to how many small boroughs there ought to be, the Government pro

certain length
posed to go only
beyond the Bill of last year, which
took away one member from 15
places returning two members.
ment was one of very great im-
The principle of total disfranchise-
portance, and ought not to be
adopted without some great and
palpable public benefit. The Go-
course-that the following bo-
verument proposed a much milder
roughs should return one member
instead of two, as at present, viz.:

Honiton, Thetford, Totnes, Har-
Andover,
wich, Evesham, Wells, Rich-
mond, Marlborough, Leominster,
Lymington, Ludlow,
Knaresborough, Tewkesbury, Mal-
don, Ripon, Cirencester, Hunting-
ton, Chippenham, Bodmin, Dor-
chester, Marlow, Devizes, Hert-
therefore, be 25 seats to be dis-
ford, and Guildford. There would,
posed of, and it was proposed
that the following counties should
return additional members, viz. :—
The West Riding of Yorkshire
two; and each of the following
one: viz. :-The southern division
of Lancashire, the northern divi-
sion of Lancashire, the county of
Middlesex, the western division of
Kent, the southern division of De-
vonshire, the southern division of
Staffordshire, the North Riding
of Yorkshire, the parts of Lind-
sey (Lincolnshire), the southern
division of Essex, the eastern divi-
sion of Somerset, the western di-
vision of Norfolk, the western di-
vision of Cornwall, and the north-
ern division of Essex. Thus, 15
additional members would be given
to the counties, and, with regard
to boroughs, it was proposed that
Kensington and Chelsea (as one
borough) should return two mem-
bers; that Birkenhead, Staley-
bridge, and Burnley should re-
[H 2}
turn one member each, and Man-

« EdellinenJatka »