H́nh ảnh trang
PDF
ePub

made on the death of George the Third, and afterwards in 1831.

Lord John Russell replied, that though in general he did not deem it advisable to state beforehand the advice which the Ministers meant to offer to the Crown, he had no objection to declare their intentions upon this occasion, which were to advise that no time ought to be lost in dissolving the present parliament, and that the new one should be summoned without delay. Sir Robert Peel expressed himself quite satisfied with this declaration.

A desultory discussion then took place. Mr. Villiers strongly protested against the postponement of the discussion upon the CornMr. Wakley, disclaiming that he was influenced by any considerations of party, demanded from Sir Robert Peel a more explicit statement of his intended policy, and complained that the country had not been sufficiently informed of the measures to be expected from him on succeeding to office. Mr. Labouchere repeated Lord John Russell's assurance that there had not been two Budgets provided by the Government, and asserted that they had resolved immediately on their defeat on the sugar-duties, not to retain office without dissolving parliament. He thought that an earlier disclosure of their intentions as to the corn, timber, and sugar questions would have been highly injurious, by creating uncertainty and premature speculation in all the branches of commerce connected with those articles. However, with respect both to timber and corn, it was no novelty that the Government had long been disposed to act on the principles which they had put forward in their Budget; and on the

Sugar-duties also, indications had been given by them of their disposition in favour of freedom of trade. On many other subjects of commerce, too, the Board of Trade had been prepared with analogous reforms. The Government had seen with alarm the great protected interests banded together on the one side, and the manufacturers with the working classes on the other. This tendency, if not put an end to by Parliament, would be a state of things to which all former conflicts were as nothing, and in a juncture of such importance it was undoubtedly the duty of the Ministers to interpose.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer entered into a statement of figures, to show that the surplus left by Sir Robert Peel's Government, and the deficiency created by the present, had been misrepresented. He was answered by Mr. Herries and Mr. Goulburn, who entered into details to prove the large reduction in the public debt which had been effected under the Administration of the Duke of Wellington.

Mr. Hume and Sir de Lacy Evans denounced the policy of the Conservative party. The former said, that the fault was with the Tories, in having seduced the Whigs into an extravagant system of expenditure. Last year he would not have cared whether the Government were Whig or Tory, but since this Budget had been proposed, he was wholly for the Whigs. He charged the landlords with being the sole authors of the sufferings of the people, and alleged that they were practically as much exempt from burdens as the noblesse of France were under the ancient regime. After some more skirmishing debate, the House resolved itself into a Committee of

Supply, and the Estimates were voted without opposition.

The session was now virtually at an end, for though the condemned parliament lingered on for about a fortnight after the preceding debate, for the purpose of enabling some measures of urgent necessity to be carried through their remaining stages, yet all the interest of the political drama was now at an end, and the House of Commons was left in possession of a very scanty number of members, the greater part being dispersed through the country to visit their constituents and make arrange ments for the approaching elections. A large number of bills, in more or less advanced stages, were announced by Lord John Russell as abandoned; some others the Government were anxious to proceed with, and they were hastily passed and sent up to the House of Lords. The fate of one measure, which all parties agreed ought not to be further delayed-the Bill for the better administration of justice, to which we have already referred, deserves a more particular notice. When the report of the Committee on this Bill was moved by the Attorney-general on the 12th June, Sir E. Sugden, who had from the first dissented from its provisions, objected to its coming into immediate operation under the existing circumstances, so as to vest in a Government, which was then on its trial before the country, the right of patronage to the valuable appointments which it created. The clause which he was about to propose would not have the slight est effect in delaying the beneficial results expect d from this bill on the administration of justice; but, considering the immense importance of the selection of persons to

fill the offices created by the measure, who would hold them permanently without reference to the party in power, he thought it very undesirable, under existing circumstances, while the real Administration of the country was about to be determined by the people, that the power of the Crown should be exercised over such institutions as the present Bill comprehended. He therefore moved, that the Bill should not come into operation until the 10th of October.

Lord John Russell, with considerable vehemence, objected to this proposal. He could not assent to such a construction of the vote which the House had lately come to, as that it was to put a stop to all acts of the executive Government, and paralyze the Administration, until the time when the opinion of the country could be obtained by a new parliament. He represented the present motion as an attempt to throw censure upon the Lord Chancellor, on whose impartiality in the distribution of patronage and general merits, he pronounced a warm panegyric.

Sir Robert Peel, while he supported the motion, said it was needless for him to disclaim any distrust of the present Lord Chancellor, who was not in the remotest degree involved in the question. Neither would he have concurred in the motion, if an Address to the Crown had been proposed, to withhold from the Government the exercise of patronage, on the ground of the recent vote of want of confidence. But the present motion was very different, being intended not to deprive the Government of patronage, which, by virtue of office, it was entitled to, but to prevent it from exercising that which was to be the

result of an Act of Parliament not yet passed. The Ministers had confessed that, in the present state of their tenure, it would not be right to propose any change in the existing Corn-laws; they had also declined to proceed with the Poorlaw; for the same reasons, he thought the operation of the present measure ought to be postponed till the meeting of a new parliament. Such a course would not in effect at all delay the desired improvement in the administration of justice.

Upon a division, Sir E. Sugden's motion was carried by a majority of 18, whereupon Lord John Russell declared his determination to throw up the bill altogether.

Sir De Lacy Evans thereupon made some strong observations, on the spirit of a partisanship displayed by a parliament of monopolists. These remarks called up Lord Stanley, who said he could not allow such language to go forth to the public without an answer. The patronage of the Bill ought, he said, to be exercised by those who, when the business to which it related should arise, might be the responsible Government, and not by an Administration which was in abeyance. If the present Ministers should find themselves in office in October, they would have the exercise of it; and if any evil should arise from the course now taken, it would be the fault of Lord John Russell alone. If, how ever, notwithstanding the course he had now taken, he should call the new parliament together as soon as they had a right to expect, he would even then be in time to introduce a new Bill, and might make the appointments under it without opposition.

Mr. Labouchere again protested

against the unconstitutional doctrine affirmed by the motion.

Mr. Wakley congratulated the House that these violent attacks on the prerogative of the Crown had originated not with the Liberal side of the house, but with the Conservative party.

Sir Robert Peel said, that the cause of all this embarrassment was sufficiently obvious. It was neither more nor less than this— the attempt to carry on executive government with a minority of the House of Commons. There clearly was no other alternative for the Government, when the House of Commons declared that the Administration did not possess its confidence, than resignation or imme diate dissolution. By immediate dissolution, he did not mean dissolution without the necessary grants to carry on the public service-he did not mean dissolution without those legislative Acts which would enable them to levy duties; but no contested motion of any kind whatsoever, no act of the House of Commons implying confidence, ought to have been brought forward; and it was from that anomalous, extraordinary, and unparalleled position, Ministers being placed in a minority on a vote of confidence, and yet coming and asking that House for a fresh demonstration of confidence, that all the embarrassment arose. Depend upon it, it was impossible that a Government could be conducted on that principle.

The Bill thus fell to the ground for the present; it was, however, revived in the next session, and then passed into a law.

After this discussion, nothing worthy of note occurred, and on the 22nd of June the parliament was prorogued by the Queen in

person. Her majesty having taken her seat on the throne in the House of Lords, the Commons, represented by the Speaker and a number of members, appeared at the bar, when the Speaker addressed the Queen as follows:

"Most gracious Sovereign, "We, your Majesty's faithful Commons, approach your Majesty with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty. It has been our most anxious desire, in granting the supplies for the present year, to place at the disposal of your Majesty the means by which the naval and military establishments of the country might be placed in a state of complete efficiency; and we entertain a strong conviction, that by thus enabling your Majesty to maintain the honour of the Crown, and to protect the just rights and interests of the people, we have adopted a course which, under the favour of Divine Providence, will insure both to this country and to the rest of Europe a continuance of the blessings of peace. We now tender to your Majesty an Act to apply certain sums of money for the service of the year 1841, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this session of Parliament; to which, in all humility, we pray your Majesty's gracious assent.'

"

The Queen having given assent to the Appropriation and some other Bills, in a clear and distinct tone of voice read the following Speech:

"My Lords and Gentlemen, "On a full consideration of the present state of public affairs, 1 have come to the determination of proroguing this Parliament, with a view to its immediate dissolution.

"The paramount importance of the trade and industry of the country, and my anxiety that the exigencies of the public service be provided for in the manner least burdensome to the community, have induced me to resort to the means which the Constitution has intrusted to me, of ascertaining the sense of my people upon matters which so deeply concern their welfare.

"I entertain the hope, that the progress of public business may be facilitated, and that divisions injurious to the cause of steady policy and useful legislation may be removed by the authority of a new Parliament, which I shall direct to be summoned without delay.

"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,

"I thank you for the readiness with which you have voted the sums necessary for the civil and military establishments.

"My Lords and Gentlemen, "In the exercise of my prerogative, I can have no other object than that of securing the rights and promoting the interests of my subjects; and I rely on the cooperation of my Parliament and the loyal zeal of my people for support in the adoption of such measures as are necessary to maintain that high station among the nations of the world which it has pleased Divine Providence to assign to this country."

The Lord Chancellor then declared Parliament prorogued to Tuesday the 29th of June.

On the following day, the Queen's Proclamation was issued, by which the Parliament thus pro

rogued was declared to be dissolved, and writs for a new one issued, returnable on the 19th of August.

Thus terminated the first session of the year 1841, and it is not too much to assert, that a more barren and unprofitable one, as respects practical legislation, is not to be found in the annals of modern Parliaments. It lasted nearly five months, and assuredly exhibits no deficiency, if we look only at the quantity of matter that was spoken, and to the enormous and unprecedented protraction of the debates which took place. But if, on the other hand, we refer to the statutebook, to see what accessions of permanent and general utility were gained to legislation during this period, it will appear that, with the solitary exception of a change neither extended nor comprehensive in our criminal jurisprudence, no single measure of large scope or general importance received the Royal assent during the entire session. The fact will be made more manifest, if we refer to the Queen's Speech at the meeting of Parliament, for though the subjects therein recommended by the sovereign to the consideration of the Legislature were even less numerous than usual, yet all these questions were found, at the close of the session, in precisely the same condition as when it began. The reform of the Irish Registration remained still unaccomplished; the Poor-law Amendment Act, though its machinery was provisionally continued, remained still unaltered; the alterations in the courts of Chancery, and the other projected Law-reforms, with the single exception just specified, were still as far as ever from their consummation. In short, the whole ope

rations of this session might have been at once blotted out of the records of Parliament, with scarcely any sensible effect upon the laws or institutions of the country. The cause which led to such unsatisfactory results is on the surface. The House of Commons came together at the commencement of this session, not in effect so much "for the despatch of business" as in order to bring to an issue that question, upon which all other parliamentary proceedings turn, viz. which of the two great parties in the state should have possession of the reins of Government. Till this was decided, the Administration was virtually in abeyance ; the close equality of the two antagonist forces rendered all progress impossible; and legislation was paralysed, while the House of Commons was made the arena of the great conflict of parties. To the interests of this game of political strategy, all other considerations were by mutual consent postponed, and the measures proposed on either side were regarded less with a view to their intrinsic merits or practical tendency, than as tests of numerical strength, or instruments of aggressive or retaliatory warfare. The evils resulting to the public interests from such a state of things are too obvious to need insisting upon, and all parties must unite to deprecate its recurrence. On which side the scale ought to preponderate-what class of opinions ought to command a decisive majority in Parliament-is a question on which the widest difference will exist, according to the bias of individual judgments; but few will dispute, after the experience of the session which has just been recorded, that a balance of parties so nearly approximating in numerical strength

« TrướcTiếp tục »