Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

unrivalled in its production, and as moderate

in the exercise of her strength as she is rich in its possession; then we may well cherish the hope that there is yet reserved for England a great work to do on her own part and on the part of others, and that for many a generation yet to come she will continue to hold a foremost place among the nations of the world."

This, then, was the scheme, and these were the sentiments by which it was enforced; but the opposition was strenuous, and great efforts were made to frustrate the intentions of the government. These efforts were directed to promote an agitation in favour of a remission of the duty on tea; and they might have been successful had it not been apparent that there was an intention on the part of the late majority in the House of Lords to persist in their opposition to the Paper Duties Bill, and so to confirm their claim to cancel the privilege claimed by the Commons. To frustrate this design a counter agitation had been carried on in favour of the repeal of the paper duties, and eventually Mr. Gladstone, in accordance with his former declaration that he reserved the right of action, announced, with the support of the government, that he intended to include all his chief financial propositions in one measure, instead of dividing them into several bills. It had been decided that constitutionally the Lords had not the power to reject a "Money Bill," and they were thenceforward placed in such a position that, while they could not reject the whole financial scheme, they were deprived of the power-which they had previously exercised -of altering its details. Such a change was not to be effected without a serious conflict, and all the influence of the Upper House, together with that of a large number of members of the Commons who had a direct interest in the peerage, and of Conservatives who were ready to uphold the privileges claimed by the Lords, was brought to bear upon the decision. Among those who, it was believed, were disaffected towards the government were some of the Irish members. Lord Derby, when in office, had obtained a grant for a mail packet service between Galway and the United States, and this grant had been

withdrawn at the time that it was believed the concession would have increased the trade of Galway, and improved the condition of the people in that part of Ireland. There had, therefore, been defection among the Irish Liberals, who had on more than one occasion joined the opponents of the government for the purpose of defeating it before the time had gone by for the complete expiration of the grant. A priest named Daly, who had been deputed to make those representations which had obtained the concession, now came over armed with credentials from men of all political parties in Ireland, and began an active canvass for the purpose of engaging the Irish Liberal members to unite against the government, and to support the opposition, for the purpose of bringing about a dissolution of parliament.

The debate in the House of Commons was prolonged and acrimonious. Mr. Bentinck, who was among those who took the opportunity of personally attacking the chancellor of the exchequer, was one of the first assailants. Lord Robert Montague was another. Mr. Gladstone's argument in reply to the contention of Sir Stafford Northcote,—who raised numerous objections to the whole scheme, and urged that this was not a time to propose the surrender of a large amount of revenue,was, that the estimates were based upon the expectation of an ordinary season and ordinary circumstances, and he never had a stronger conviction than that there was likely to be an excess over the estimated revenue. As to the disposal of the surplus, he balanced the claims of tea and sugar on the one hand and paper on the other. The reduction of the duties upon articles of popular consumption was not the first object kept in view by Sir Robert Peel in 1842, but the liberation and extension of trade; this principle lay at the root of our reformed financial policy, and had governed almost every budget. He demanded that the opinion of the house should be taken by a division instead of being deferred by long and useless debates. Mr. Disraeli announced that in committee he should take the sense of the house on the question whether a remission of indirect taxation should not be

DEBATE ON THE BUDGET.

35

made with respect to the duties on tea. Mr. | duty and burden of the House of Commons, Horsfall proposed an amendment that the tea duty should be reduced to a shilling a pound, and it was supported by Mr. Disraeli and Sir Stafford Northcote, but was lost on a division.

Lord Robert Cecil1 made a speech which was listened to with some impatience because of its personal animosity. He denounced the budget as a personal budget-they had no guarantee for it but the promises of the chancellor of the exchequer, and experience had taught them that he was not a financier who was always to be relied on. On a former occasion he had described the policy of the government as one only worthy of a country attorney; but he was now bound to say that he had done injustice to the attorneys. The attorneys were very humble men, but he believed they would have scorned such a course as that of her majesty's ministers, which was one distinguished by all the ingenuity of legal chicane. In any other place it would be called a "dodge."

Americanized finance, he declared, was to be a consequence of Americanized institutions. He thought the House of Commons ought to mark its peculiar indignation at the way in which it had been treated by the chancellor of the exchequer. So long as he held the seals of office there was neither regularity in the House of Commons nor confidence in the country.

No reply was made to these observations. They were not believed to require any. Some days later, however, Mr.Gladstone took up what had been called the constitutional question, and adduced numerous precedents to show that the power to combine different provisions in the same financial measure had been exercised by the House of Commons to a wider extent than in the present bill, and observing that the practice was not only justified by precedent, but by reason and convenience, the several matters in the bill, essentially homogeneous, being items of one and the same account. It was the doctrine of the constitution that to originate matters of finance was the exclusive right and

1 Now the Marquis of Salisbury.

and to divide this function between two distinct and independent bodies would lead to utter confusion. Referring to Mr. Horsman's objection that the budget gave a mortal stab to the constitution, he said, "I want to know what constitution it gives a mortal stab to. In my opinion it gives no stab at all; but, as far as it alters, it alters so as to revive and restore the good old constitution which took its root in Saxon times, which groaned under the Plantagenets, which endured the hard rule of the Tudors, which resisted the Stuarts, and which has now come to maturity under the House of Brunswick. I think that constitution will be all the better for the operation. As to the constitution laid down by my right honourable friend, under which there is to be a division of function and office between the House of Commons and the House of Lords-with regard to fixing the income and charge of the country from year to year, both of them being equally responsible for it, which means that neither would be responsible-as far as that constitution is concerned I cannot help saying, that in my humble opinion the sooner it receives a mortal stab the better."

Sir James Graham, suffering severely from a disease of which he died less than six months afterwards, went down to the house and delivered a powerful defence of the government; and Lord John Russell, Cobden, and other eminent speakers took an earnest part in the debate. It was significant that Sir William Heathcote, Mr. Gladstone's colleague in the representation of Oxford, and Mr. Walpole, chairman of the committee of precedents in the preceding year, declared the course taken to be constitutional. This was awkward for the opposition. There was no division on the second reading after all, and the budget of which Mr. Disraeli had said that ministers had created an artificial surplus in order that they might perpetrate a financial caprice, eventually passed by a majority of 15, 296 voting for it and 281 against it. When it was sent up to the Lords the Duke of Rutland moved its rejection, but Lord Derby advised the withdrawal of the amendment, taking the

opportunity to censure Mr. Gladstone, and it was adopted.

Some real advances had been made towards further measures of reform in parliament, though no general scheme in the shape of a Reform Bill was accepted. We have already noticed that there had been persistent endeavours to supersede, or to omit, that part of the oath of allegiance which prevented the admission of a Jew to parliament, and these efforts had now been successful after a quarter of a century, during which the question had been over and over again debated. Mr. Disraeli had spoken with eloquence and written with force on the subject of the claims of the Jews to all the rights of citizenship. It need scarcely be pointed out that his novels contain references to the virtues and the nobility of the Jewish race which many people still consider extravagant. In his Memoir of Lord George Bentinck the whole question of the claims of the Jews to a great place in the history of the world, and as the depositaries of a religion of which Christianity is the consummation, is set forth with serious and significant dignity. It was therefore a happy coincidence that the removal of Jewish disabilities to sit in parliament should have been effected while he was the leader of the House of Commons. The time had passed when it was necessary for a Conservative holding that position, to resign it in consequence of voting for such a measure, as Disraeli's former chief -Lord George Bentinck-had done. There was complete unanimity of opinion on the subject between Lord John Russell--who had espoused the cause of Jewish emancipationand the Conservative leader; but the matter was not settled till 1858, eleven years after Baron Lionel de Rothschild had been elected as one of the members for the city of London. A bill was passed in the House of Commons to admit Jews to sit, but it was thrown out by the Lords, and Baron Rothschild resigned his seat, stood again, and was again elected. In 1850 he presented himself and offered to take the oaths after having for four sessions occupied a seat under the gallery of the house, where strangers as well as members were accustomed to sit. He now demanded to be

[ocr errors]

sworn, and took the oaths of allegiance and supremacy on the Old Testament. The oath of abjuration followed, and he omitted from it the words on the true faith of a Christian." If he had chosen to commit what to him would have been a great impiety, and made use of words which some notorious unbelievers had repeated without apparent shame or scruple, he might possibly have taken his seat unchallenged. As it was he was excluded from either sitting or voting, and returned to his old place, where he might listen to, and perhaps by his presence make a silent protest against the decision of the house.

But several other Jews had presented themselves for election, and among them was Sir David Salomons, a baronet and alderman of the city of London, and a gentleman highly respected for his attainments and for his conduct as a magistrate. In 1851 he was proposed as a candidate for the representation of Greenwich, was elected, and on going up to take the oath omitted the words "on the true faith of a Christian," as Baron Rothschild had done, and with the same result.

He

When the government was asked whether they would sue him according to an act of parliament if he persisted in taking his seat, the answer of Lord John Russell was that they had no such intention. He therefore took his place amongst the members, one half of the house shouting to him to withdraw, and the other encouraging him to remain. He did remain, and what was more, took part in the debate on a resolution that he should be ordered to withdraw, and himself voted in some of the divisions for an adjournment. spoke calmly and was listened to with attention. He was actuated by no desire to presume on, or to disregard, the dignity of the house; but by the belief that having been lawfully elected he was justified in asserting his rights and those of his constituents. The resolution for his withdrawal was carried. The speaker requested him to leave, but he remained until the sergeant-at-arms was ordered to remove him; that functionary then touched him on the shoulder and he quietly retired. He had asserted his right, had spoken and voted as a member, and he awaited further proceed

PUBLIC INDIFFERENCE TO REFORM.

ings. Two actions were brought against him to recover penalties, but neither of them was by the government. One was withdrawn, as they both had the same object. To obtain a legal settlement of the question the trial came on as a special case in 1852, and the issue sought was whether the words which the defendant had omitted formed an essential part of the oath inserted for the purpose of obtaining a profession of the Christian faith; or were only a part of the form of an affirmation adopted to secure a solemn declaration in accordance with the views of the majority of those to be sworn, but liable to be omitted or altered in particular instances? Three judges out of four decided that it was a necessary part of the oath, and the only thing that remained was to alter the form of affirmation; but though the House of Commons passed measures for that purpose they were repeatedly thrown out by the House of Lords, until in 1858 Lord John Russell prepared a bill in which the form of oath was somewhat altered, and a clause was introduced providing that where the oath had to be administered to a Jew the words "on the true faith of a Christian" might be omitted. The House of Lords, however, struck out this clause, and so made the bill useless for the purpose for which it was specially intended. The Commons refused to accept the alteration, and referred it to a committee to draw up a statement of their reasons, Baron Rothschild being actually nominated as a member of that committee on the motion of Mr. Duncombe. Ungracefully ready to yield rather than provoke an actual collision, the Lords assented to a compromise suggested by Lord Lucan, and inserted a clause enabling either house to modify the form of the oath in such a way as to admit a Jew, but at the same time reserving the power to alter the mode of affirmation at pleasure. This was such a manifestly weak and uncertain expedient that, though it was rapidly passed through both houses, it was soon after superseded by another measure which consolidated the acts referring to oaths, allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy, and enabled Jews to omit the words which had previously prevented them from taking a seat

37

in the legislature, though they could fulfil other high and important offices-Sir David Salomons himself having served the office of Lord - mayor of London in 1855 with great dignity and success.

It may be mentioned that three or four days before the bill with the compromise passed in 1858, another measure introduced by Mr.Locke King for the abolition of the demand for a property qualification for members of parliament received the royal assent. Up to this time nobody could sit in parliament without giving proof that he possessed landed property up to a certain value, and, as was pointed out by Mr. Locke King, this obsolete custom had ceased to have any beneficial effect, since any man with sufficient influence to obtain a seat could arrange with some friend or supporter to make to him a merely formal conveyance of a piece of land of sufficient value to cover the legal requirement.

These were among the amendments of parliamentary representation which were made during the period from 1855 to 1865, but there appeared to be little popular excitement on behalf of a general measure of wide reform. Within the walls of the House of Commons, only a few ardent supporters of an extension of the franchise were eager to bring in a bill that would increase the number of voters, and though a redistribution of seats in accordance with the growing importance of some of the places insufficiently represented, was more widely demanded, so little general enthusiasm was manifested outside parliament that there was no encouragement for reformers to risk defeat by a strong opposition and an indifferent government. Lord Palmerston himself was among the most indifferent, and it was pretty well understood that he had an actual aversion to the introduction of anything that, in his opinion, would unnecessarily disturb the ministry or promote political demonstrations in the country. The country, however, was in no mood for political manifestations, and when, on the 1st of March, 1860, Lord John Russell introduced his "Representation of the People Bill," in the belief that the time had come for making further advances in the system of parliamentary legislation, he was

listened to with an ominous calm, which bespoke the neglect that afterwards frustrated his efforts to carry it through either house. It is true that there was nothing startling about the proposed changes. There was to be a £10 occupation franchise for the counties, and the borough franchise was to be reduced to £6. The payment of poor-rates was to be a qualification for a vote. Twenty-five boroughs returning two members each were to be left with one; twelve counties or county divisions were to have one member; the West Riding two additional seats and the southern division of Lancashire two; Kensington and Chelsea were to form a borough with two members; Birkenhead, Stalybridge, and Barnsley were to have one each; and Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Leeds each an additional member. The University of London was also to be represented by a member. In places where three members were returned the third was to represent the minority. The bill appeared to be unacceptable to both sides. It was too much for those who deprecated disturbance, and not enough for the promoters of political progress in the direction of a largely increased representation of the body of the people. It was said that the opposition were so sure of Lord Palmerston's hostility to the scheme, that Lord Derby had broadly hinted to him that if he could remove Gladstone, Russell, and Milner Gibson from the ministry the Conservatives would support the government. If this had really been suggested, it betrayed a singular misunderstanding of Palmerston's character. He may have cordially disliked the proposed Reform Bill, but he would certainly not betray his colleagues. However, he probably knew that there was little occasion for him to be troubled about Lord Russell's measures. Proposals were made for its adjournment till the following year, when the census was to be taken, and it was so evident that by the delay of a prolonged debate the opponents of the bill might be able to defeat it, that, with manifest grief and disappointment, Lord Russell announced its withdrawal.

In the following year he had evidently abandoned all intention of moving any further in the direction of a similar bill, and indeed,

in the royal speech, no mention was made of parliamentary reform. The question was subsequently raised by Mr. Locke King, who proposed to lower the county qualification to £10, and by Mr. Baines, who brought forward a motion for reducing the borough franchise to £6, but both suggestions were rejected.

Reference has been made to the ages of Lord Palmerston, Lord Lyndhurst, and Lord Brougham, and to the failing health of Sir James Graham. These were instances of some of the losses which might naturally be expected to befall the nation at no remote period. Already several of those who had been the contemporaries of Mr. Gladstone during the early part of his career were seen no more in their accustomed places, and he had referred in words of solemn pathos to the fact that the time had arrived when, in looking round him, he missed the once familiar forms and faces, and felt their loss by that sense of solitariness which even the necessity for making new associations will not for a time overcome.

In the ranks of literature as well as in the world of politics and statesmanship, well known names had fallen out of the lists of the living. Douglas Jerrold the satirist, whose brilliant wit and caustic subtle humour had sparkled both in the drama and in the pages of Punch and other periodicals, had died in 1857, just as the tidings of the Indian mutiny had reached England. Hallam the historian-long bereft of the son whose early death was mourned by Tennyson and by Gladstone-lived on and worked on until January, 1859, when he died at the age of eighty-one. Leigh Hunt, the charming poet and essayist, who had outlived the dreary days of his imprisonment for libelling George the Fourth, was seventy-five years old when his death took place at Putney in August, 1859. In November of the same year intelligence came from Bonn of the death of the Chevalier Bunsen, who, when he was Prussian ambassador in London, had been the delightful companion and warm friend of distinguished men of letters in this country, and was himself the author of many books of deep interest to students of ecclesiastical lore, and of one by which he has been better known,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »