Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

duty. After all it has achieved by resolute, courageous, commercial reforms on behalf of the masses of the people, and not on behalf of them alone, but on behalf of every class, on behalf of the throne, and of the institutions of the country, I feel convinced that this House will not refuse to go boldly on in the direction in which it has already reaped such honourable rewards. By pursuing such a course as this, it will be in your power to scatter blessings among the people --and blessings which are the best of all blessings, because you are not forging mechanical helps for men, to enable you to do that for them which they ought to do for themselves but you are enlarging their means, you are giving value to their labour, you are appealing to their sense of responsibility, and you are not impairing their sense of honourable self-dependence. There were times of old when Sovereigns made progress through the land, and when, at the proclamation of their heralds, they caused to be scattered heaps of coin among the people. That may have been a goodly spectacle, but it is also a goodly spectacle, in the altered spirit and circumstances of our times, when a Sovereign is enabled through the wisdom of her great Council assembled in Parliament, again to scatter blessings among the people in the shape of wise and prudent laws, which do not sap in any respect the foundations of duty, but which strike away the shackles from the arm of industry, which give new incentive and new reward to toil, and which win more and more for the Throne and for the institutions of the country the gratitude, the confidence, and the love of an united people. Let me even say to those

who are justly anxious on the subject of our national defences, that that which stirs the flame of patriotism in men, that which binds them together, that which gives them increased confidence in their rulers, that which makes them feel and know that they are treated justly, and that we who represent them are labouring incessantly and earnestly for their good-is in itself no small, no feeble, and no transitory part of national defence. We recommend this plan to your impartial and searching inquiry; we do not presume to make a claim on your acknowledgments, but neither do we desire to draw on your generous confidence, nor to appeal to your compassion. We ask for nothing but impartial search and inquiry; we know that it will receive that justice at your hands, and we confidently anticipate in its behalf the approval alike of Parliament and of the people of this empire." (The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid loud and general cheering.)

Mr. Disraeli complimented the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the great ability with which he had made his statement, but urged that ample time should be given to the House for consideration of proposals involving so great an amount of details. Mr. Crawford recommended on behalf of the commercial interests of the country that there should be no unnecessary delay in dealing with the financial measures. Mr. Newdegate pleaded for further time. They should not, he said, be so eager to register the commands of France. This expression called up Lord John Russell, who denied that the treaty had been forced on the country, and intimated that

until the material points in the Budget were decided on, he could take no step in advancing the Reform Bill. Finally, it was agreed that the debate on the Budget should take place on the 20th. On the evening of the 17th a notice of motion for the 20th was given by Mr. Du Cane, one of the members for Bucks, the object of which was to test the opinion of the House of Commons on the policy of the Budget. On the same evening some discussion took place with regard to the course of proceeding to be adopted by the Government. In answer to a question from Mr. Bentinck, Lord Palmerston said, that the Government had not deemed it necessary to provide by any understanding with France for the contingency of Parliament not sanctioning the treaty. Mr. Disraeli inquired in what shape it was proposed to bring the treaty under the consideration of the House so as to subject it to a full discussion. Mr. Horsman described the conclusion of the treaty as a stretch of the Royal Prerogative. Lord Palmerston said the only question was as to the order by which their proceedings should be governed. If the Government had brought the treaty forward before the details of the proposed commercial changes had been discussed, they would have been met by the objection that they were asking something unreasonable. They intended to take the sense of Parliament on the matters depending upon the treaty, and it would also be their duty to give the House an opportunity of stating their opinion, ay or no, upon that engagement.

Subsequently to the announcement of Mr. Du Cane's motion, an

other notice was given by Mr. Disraeli, of an amendment to be proposed by him on the House going into committee on the Budget; and when that proceeding was about to take place on the day appointed, Mr. Du Cane postponed his own motion to give precedence to Mr. Disraeli. That right hon. gentleman accordingly moved the following resolution :

"That this House does not think fit to go into committee on the Customs' Acts, with a view to the reduction or repeal of the duties referred to in the treaty of commerce between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French, until it shall have considered and assented to the engagement in that treaty."

He premised that it was not his intention to give any opinion upon the policy or provisions of the treaty with France, or upon the recent financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although he and his party regretted that, from the peculiar manner in which public business had been brought before the House by the Government, they were obliged to precipitate conclusions which ought to be postponed until many preliminary discussions had taken place which might modify their opinions, he had deemed it his duty to give notice of this resolution, in order to afford the House an opportunity of remedying an evil of no slight magnitude; for, if the House should go into committee upon the Customs Acts, and adopt the resolutions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the treaty would, in his opinion, never come before the House. If the Customs Act passed, the assent of Parliament, provided for by an article in the treaty, would have

been fulfilled. How, then, was the House to deal with questions in the treaty which had nothing to do with Customs' duties? The 11th article, for example, binding the parties not to prohibit the exportation of coal, furnished (in conjunction with the 19th article) an unanswerable reason for bringing the treaty itself before the House. If the reductions and remissions of duty under the treaty were made, he wanted to know how the Government proposed to subject the treaty to the constitutional control of the House of Commons. He thought the House could not do better, in order to extricate itself from a difficult and humiliating position, than follow the precedent of the treaty with France of 1786. Mr. Pitt, in the following year, called the attention of the House of Commons to the French treaty, moving resolutions which embodied the gist of the treaty; those resolutions were passed and reported; an address to the Crown was agreed to, which was sent up to the House of Lords, and it was not until both Houses had concurred in the address, and Parliament had had a constitutional opportunity of considering the treaty, that Mr. Pitt introduced his Consolidation Act. He saw no reason why the present House of Commons should be treated differently from that of 1787, and he was at a loss to imagine why the Government should refuse to consent to his suggestion, and to pursue the same course as Mr. Pitt. In conclusion, Mr. Disraeli remarked upon the negotiator of the treaty and upon its form. He thought the appointment of Mr. Cobden as their secret agent was a most unwise act on the part of the Government, the treaty indicating

the idiosyncrasy of the negotiator. As to the form of the treaty, it appeared to him to be an instrument devised to silence the voice of one Legislature; let it not, he said, deprive another Legislature of its privileges.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer answered Mr. Disraeli in a speech of great power. He observed that, Mr. Disraeli, in calling the attention of the House to a subject which was strictly a point of procedure, had introduced extraneous topics into his speech; for the question was a narrow one, though of great importance. He contended that Mr. Disraeli was correct neither in his facts nor his principles. He read from the journals of the House some of the resolutions moved by Mr. Pitt in 1787, and some of the proceedings thereupon, and he denied that the present Government had withdrawn the treaty from the cognizance of the House or abandoned the precedent of Mr. Pitt. He could not understand, he said, what were Mr. Disraeli's notions of the respective functions of the Crown and of Parliament in respect to treaties. He insisted that the Government had followed substantially the precedent of Mr. Pitt, with due allowance for the change of circumstances and of the law. But whether the course they had taken was right or wrong, he wanted to know what it was the House could do on a message from the Crown which it could not do on papers presented to the House? proposition was puerile. The Government had held it to be their first duty, without interposing difficulties, to bring under the cognizance of Parliament the most vital and substantial parts of the treaty. If they had erred on any

The

point it was by too rigid an adherence to the precedent of Mr. Pitt. The real sin of the Government, as he understood, was that they had combined the treaty and the Budget; that is, that they ought to have reduced at once the duties upon French wines and spirits by resolution, which must have taken effect immediately. Mr. Gladstone concluded by showing the consequences of this course, which would have had the effect, he said, of reviving the system of differential duties.

Sir H. Cairns contended that, by the course now pursued, should the House hereafter object to certain articles in the treaty not affect ing duties, the Customs' resolutions having been passed, the mischief would have been done, and the House could not go back. If they went into Committee on the Customs Acts, it would not be competent to any member to enter into the general policy of the treaty. This was a departure from the precedent of Mr. Pitt. He asked that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the treaty before it was called upon to deal with the Customs duties.

The Attorney-General replied to Sir H. Cairns, and contended that the alterations of the law proposed by the resolutions with reference to the treaty, brought the propriety of the whole treaty at once into the field of discussion, the treaty being the ground of the alteration of the law.

Sir F. Kelly disputed the construction put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the 14th and 20th articles of the treaty, the effect of which was that the treaty would be invalid until the whole, in its entirety, should be VOL. CII.

He

sanctioned by Parliament. pointed out the consequences of a decision of the House adverse to the 11th article after a reduction or remission of duties by the resolutions. If any one vote should be rejected by the House, it would be impossible to adopt the treaty, or even for Her Majesty to subunit it to the approval of the House. This difficulty would have been avoided by a strict adherence to the precedent of 1787.

Mr. Newdegate maintained that the course taken by the Government was not only repugnant to the precedent set by Mr. Pitt, but was not consistent with the practice of the House. He protested against the treaty as one-sided.

Mr. Ayrton observed that the Government were for the first time invited to depart from the established usages of the Constitution, and enter upon a course, hitherto, he believed, unknown. It had always been the practice, in these cases, to take into consideration either the message from the Crown or the treaty itself. Whenever Parliament was called upon to vote the money of the people in execution of a treaty, it was the practice to go into Committee upon the treaty, and then to consider the votes. The House, in Committee upon the Customs Acts, would consider the resolutions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but not the treaty, the consideration of which should precede that of the resolutions. He should vote for the amendment.

Mr. Malins complained that an attempt was made to drive the House into a sanction of the treaty by a side-wind. As there were articles in the treaty which would not be the subject of any resolution in the Committee on [D]

the Customs Acts, he wanted to know in what way the Government proposed to take the sense of the House upon the treaty.

Mr. Bright, after listening to the debate, was at a loss to tell what was the question they were discussing. He could not find out, he said, from the resolution or the speech of Mr. Disraeli, what was the real object or purpose of the motion. If he sat on the other side of the House, instead of carping at the treaty and making it the stalking-horse of party, he would attack it in a manly way. A portion of the members opposite were very much annoyed at the treaty; then, why not bring forward a motion and say so? He was of opinion that the Government had taken the right course; but say that their policy was bad, the treaty bad, and the Budget bad; let the course taken be a straightforward one; let an explicit resolution be brought forward, and the question discussed upon its merits.

Mr. S. Fitzgerald recalled the House to the distinct point in question- namely, whether the course taken by the Government would give the House a fair opportunity of discussing the treaty. He contended that it did not. He arraigned the policy of the treaty with reference especially to the 11th article respecting coals and the differential duties on shipping, and he asked when the House would have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon these matters. What he wanted was a Committee that could consider all the clauses of the treaty re quiring the assent of Parliament.

Lord J. Russell observed that he had found some difficulty in understanding the object of the

resolution, but it now appeared that what was meant was this, that instead of the course hitherto taken, by which those parts of the treaty which required legislative sanction were submitted to the House of Commons, it was proposed that every clause of the treaty, including those depending upon the prerogative of the Crown, should be discussed in that House, which would be a total change in the Constitution of the country. The Government, on the contrary, proposed to bring before Parliament all the clauses requiring the assent of the House, and then to move an address to the Crown on the subject of the treaty. This was the course which Mr. Pitt adopted, and it was the only course which Parliament could rationally pursue. He agreed with Mr. Bright that the proposition involved in the treaty, which was a large one, ought to have been met by a resolution putting its principle fairly in issue. To endeavour to harass the House by questions as to the form of procedure was unworthy of a great party.

Mr. Horsman said the House was called upon, by the course taken by the Government, to pass financial votes, every one of which involved political responsibilities and results, while the instrument (the treaty) was not submitted to them. He argued that this course was opposed to that followed by Mr. Pitt in 1787, and, contrasting the manner in which Mr. Pitt had treated Parliament and adhered to constitutional law and precedent with the secrecy of the negotiation and execution of the present treaty, and the manner in which it had been postponed to the Budget, he thought they indicated something like a conscious

« EdellinenJatka »