Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER II.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM:-Lord John Russell states the Objects of his intended Measure for extending the Franchise on the 9th February— Outlines of the Scheme-Remarks made upon it by Mr. Hume, Sir John Walsh, Mr. Bright, Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Disraeli, Sir Benjamin Hall, Lord Dudley Stuart, and other Members-Leave given to bring in the Bill, but it is not further proceeded with. REORGANIZATION OF THE MILITIA :- Lord John Russell enters at large into the Question of the National Defences, and proposes a Scheme for raising a Body of Men on the footing of a Local Militia-Details of the Plan-Speeches of Mr. Hume, Colonel Thompson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Cobden, and Lord Palmerston, who expresses his preference for the Regular Militia, and suggests the omis sion of the word "Local" from the Bill-Leave is given to bring the Bill in-On bringing up the Report Lord Palmerston moves to omit the word "Local" from the Title of the intended Measure-Lord John Russell strongly opposes the Proposition-Speeches of Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Disraeli, Sir George Grey, and Mr. Hume-On a Division, Lord Palmerston's Amendment is carried by 135 to 126Lord J. Russell thereupon throws up the responsibility of the Measure, and treats the Decision of the House as a Vote of withdrawal of Confidence-In answer to Sir Benjamin Hall, he declares his intention to abandon the Reins of Office-Remarks on the Dissolution of the Ministry, and the causes of that Event-The Earl of Derby is sent for by the Queen, and entrusted with the formation of a New Cabinet -Official Statement of the Resignation of the Government by the Marquis of Lansdowne in the House of Peers-Lord J. Russell makes a similar announcement in the other House, and states the Principles to which he intends to adhere when out of Office-Mr. Hume presses for a Declaration of the Policy of the New Government-The Earl of Derby, on the 27th February, delivers a comprehensive and eloquent Exposition of his intended Policy in the House of Lords-He enters into the subjects of Foreign Affairs, Commercial Policy, Parliamentary Reform, Law Amendment, and other topics -Discussion on Free Trade -Speeches of Earl Grey, Earl Fitzwilliam, and the Marquis of Clanricarde-Both Houses are adjourned to the 12th March.

N the 9th of February, Lord announce the measure, of which an intimation had been given in Her Majesty's speech, for the extension of the suffrage, and the reform of VOL. XCIV.

the representative system.

truth

be said that very warm interest was manifested in the country on the subject, or that any great degree of curiosity prevailed as to the nature [C]

of the ministerial scheme. The noble Lord commenced his speech by observing that with reference to the satisfactory state of this country, in its home and foreign relations, he thought the present was a more proper time for considering this subject than when the country was in a state of agitation and excitement. After a brief exposition of the principles upon which such a measure should be based, and adverting to the importance of the functions performed by that House, Lord John noticed the prominent features of various schemes of Parliamentary reform that had been proposed antecedent to the Act of 1832, and explained the main objects contemplated by that great measure, namely the disfranchisement of nomination boroughs and the enfranchisement of large towns then excluded from the representation. It was not then intended that there should be no boroughs with small constituencies. He thought it would be extremely unwise, and that it would destroy the balance of the constitution, to say that only counties and large cities and towns should enjoy the franchise, excluding small representations. In regard to disfranchisement, therefore, the present Bill proposed to disfranchise only in cases of proved corruption, and by another Bill he should propose to make a considerable change in the mode of inquiry into cases of corruption, whereby, upon an address of the House, founded even upon common fame, it should be lawful for the Crown to appoint a Commission, clothed with the same powers of inquiry as those which had been so effectual in the case of St. Albans. In respect to the extension of the franchise, the grounds upon which

the present measure proceeded were, first, that the Reform Act, in requiring a 101. qualification for household voting, had placed the suffrage rather too high; secondly, -and this consideration had great influence upon his mind-the growing intelligence of the people. He proposed, therefore, to reduce the household qualification to 57. rated value, which would add a great number of persons to the constituency, to whom he was persuaded the franchise might the franchise might be safely intrusted. He did not propose to change the general constitution of the county qualification, but he thought that if persons with

qualification of 20. a-year rated value were entitled to sit on juries, they could not be unfit to be intrusted with the county franchise. It was proposed, likewise, to reduce the qualification derived from copyholds and long leases from 10l. to 5l., and to give the county franchise to persons paying 40s. a-year assessed taxes who lived without the limits of a borough, and who were now excluded from voting. There had been an outcry, Lord John observed, against small boroughs, founded upon a false assumption that all such places were infected with corruption, whereas many were not liable to this reproach, which did attach to certain large towns. But it was said, not only did the influence of property prevail in such small boroughs, but that in some cases it approached the character of direct nomination. In order to remove this reproach, it was proposed, in the case of boroughs having less than 500 electors, to add thereto neighbouring places, and as most of these small boroughs were situated in agricultural counties, the general

balance of interests established by the Reform Act would not be disturbed. Upon the subject of a property qualification for members, he retained the opinion he had last year, and he had introduced a clause in the Bill repealing all the Acts since the Act of Anne by which property qualifications were required. It appeared to him, also, that the state of the oaths taken at the table of the House was not such as could be consistently maintained. This Bill, therefore, proposed to alter these oaths, and in one of them he had not inserted the words "on the true faith of a Christian." The Bill would further provide that, upon a change of offices held under the Crown, vacation of the seat and re-election should not be required. The noble Lord stated the few slight alterations he contemplated with respect to Scotland and Ireland. Although he did not propose to alter the county franchise in the latter country, he did propose to reduce that for cities and boroughs from 81. to 51. In conclusion, he observed, that the question of franchise was not dissociated with that of the instruction and education of the people, and he was convinced that, if in another session of Parliament the House should take into consideration the means of establishing a really national system of education, it would confer one of the greatest blessings the country could receive.

Mr. Hume did not receive the Bill in a very favourable manner. He complained of several omissions in the scheme, and especially that the subjects of the ballot and of triennial Parliaments were evaded. Sir J. Walsh reproached Lord J. Russell with again tampering with the institutions of the country, after having carried a comprehensive measure of reform that was to

obviate the necessity of further changes. These inroads upon the constitution he believed would either reduce this country to a democratic republic, or disable that House from fulfilling its proper functions.

Mr. H. Berkeley thought the noble Lord's Bill, though it would not be altogether approved, would be generally agreeable to the country. He ought, however, to have given voters a protection at the polling places by adopting the ballot.

Mr. P. Howard spoke generally in favour of the measure.

Sir R. Inglis protested against the meditated alteration of the oath of abjuration-a matter utterly unconnected with the subject of Parliamentary reform, and he trusted that the House would not sanction this part of the Bill.

Mr. Bright said, although he disapproved of some portions of the measure, which fell short of what the country expected, still there were other portions which would give some degree of satisfaction to large classes. He regretted that Lord John had not, by the ballot, taken out of the hands of employers the power of influencing the employed. He thought the county franchise, reduced to 201., still too high, and urged that the principle of disfranchisement should have been carried further, that larger constituencies should have additional representatives, or that new constituencies should be created.

Mr. Baillie pointed out what he considered the defects and deficiencies of the Bill, which would prevent, he thought, its becoming a permanent measure, or securing the confidence of the great body of The present sincere Reformers. Ministers must bear all the responsibility of this attempt to

renew

and promote agitation, made by them in order to retain office.

Mr. Roche examined the measure on the supposition that it was to be applied in its integrity to Ireland. Mr. Newdegate commented unfavourably upon the attempt to include in the measure an utterly incongruous provision, for the purpose of doing away with the sanction of Christianity to their deliberations. Sir Joshua Walmsley predicted an unfavourable reception for the measure through the country. Mr. C. Anstey approved of it as an "instalment" of reform. Sir J. Tyrrell, in a humorous speech, recommended that this milk-andwater measure should be entitled,

66

A Bill to retain the Ministers in Office." In answer to a question as to what day he proposed to fix for the second reading, Lord John Russell mentioned the 23rd of February.

Mr. Disraeli addressed himself particularly to this point,-as to the time which should be allowed for considering the Bill. Support ing his argument by reference to the Reform Bill and the Corn Law Repeal Bill, he said it was very unusual for a Minister to come forward and make a statement introductory to a Bill without being able to produce the document itself.

"I would object to this course of proceeding, even if I assumed that the Bill was delayed by some mere technicality, and that, after the seventeen or twenty-seven Cabinet Councils which have been held, Ministers have really made up their minds on the question. But when we know that Ministers continue to meet daily, the case assumes a very different aspect. The Bill, when produced, may be invested with a great many details

which the noble Lord has it not in his power to communicate to us. If when the Bill is laid upon the table we find in it anything which may not agree with or be additional to the statement we have been favoured with to-night, that would be a reason for a longer interval between the first and second reading than the noble Lord proposes. Considering the importance of the question considering that the Minister himself has not made up his mind, apparently, to the details of his own measure, I do not, I think, ask too much in demanding a longer time for consideration. Ï think it is much better that we should have a month, and that is not a great deal more than three Parliamentary weeks, to enable the country to make itself acquainted with the measure."

For himself he was disinclined to discussion on the present occasion. He therefore contented himself with a sarcasm at the Reformers for the pleasing contentment which they had manifested at the short commons of reform now vouchsafed to their keen appetite; an argument or two against Mr. Bright's principle of giving to Manchester a great number of members because such places as Retford have two; and the expression of a hope that the proposal to enlarge small boroughs would not be tainted by a repetition of the not very creditable manoeuvres which distinguished the settlement of the boundaries of agricultural boroughs by the Reform Act.

However, his opinion of the Bill, as he collected its purport from Lord John Russell's statement, was that it would not call for opposition as being opposed to the constitutional arrangement of interests now existing: his doubt was, whether the measure were

sufficiently comprehensive for the question and interests it undertook to deal with.

He hoped that the time of Parliament would not be occupied with this measure to the exclusion of other important topics. The whole system of our colonial government, and the principle on which the taxation of the country was to be based, were subjects on which the people of this country felt much anxiety. And there was likewise a great desire to see the legal reform that was promised carried out. These measures required considerable time and mature consideration, and these were strong reasons for not occupying the time of the House exclusively upon this measure of Parliamentary reform.

Sir George Grey could scarcely tell whether the speech of Mr. Disraeli was addressed to the supporters or the opponents of the measure. He did not dissent from the principle, yet he asked for a month's delay, to commence the amalgamation of boroughs,a question of detail fit for consideration on the second reading. Sir George hoped that the House would not consent to such a proposal, or permit the Bill to be thrown back to a late period of the session. Sir Benjamin Hall wished that the measure had been more full and comprehensive; but he thought it was unfair to contrast the excitement of 1832 with the calmness now prevailing. In 1832, every stage of the Bill was contested. He recollected dividing upon it at seven in the morning. There were sixteen or seventeen divisions on the introduction of the Bill. Now, however, they had no division, and gentlemen opposite dared not vote against it. When Reformers were taunted with voting for so small a measure,

he could only say that they were ready to take all they could get. They would vote for and propose amendments, and try to get more. He agreed that it was wrong to continue the small boroughs, and they would take the sense of the House upon that point. He looked upon this as an important portion of the Bill, and thought it should be regarded narrowly; for, in his opinion, the scheme of congregating the towns together would make the county constituencies more corrupt, and place them more in the hands of the landlords.

Lord Dudley Stuart took the same line of moderate approbation of the measure, and of explanatory apology for the political calm now pervading the country. He remonstrated, however, against the tone of political condescension towards the people adopted by Lord John Russell, whose notion of conferring the franchise on the people as a reward was exactly that of a potentate in reference to a charter octroyée.

Leave was then given to bring in the Bill; but more important issues led to a Ministerial crisis, and the Reform Bill of 1852 was heard of no more. It excited comparatively small interest throughout the community, and, if we may judge from the criticisms pronounced upon it in various quarters, the verdict of the public would, under no circumstances, have been favourable to the measure. A question pregnant with far more important results to the political world was the organization of the Militia. The Ministerial proposition for that object was explained by Lord John Russell in a Committee of the whole House on the Local Militia Acts, on the 16th of February. The noble Lord commenced his speech by an

« PreviousContinue »