H́nh ảnh trang
PDF
ePub

If there were any who thought that the continuance of the Sugar and Timber-duties, as they existed at present, were essential to the interest of the colonies, as that of the Corn-law was to the prosperity of the agriculturist-if they were comforted by that amend ment, they were certainly the most easily consoled people he had ever met with.

There was little else said in condemnation of the Government. The Duke of Wellington, with his characteristic manliness and fairness, had given his approval to the sums voted for defraying the expenses of the late various military expeditions, though frequently implying that the establishments were not large enough; yet with those establishments and influence in every part of the world, they had successfully maintained the national honour and interests; and they had not only been maintained, but the power of England had been asserted and proved in a manner which would not be speedily forgotten.

It would be a satisfaction to the Ministry, that in the face of an Opposition, the most formidable and active which had ever thwarted an Administration, no opportunity had been supplied of proving that the honour of the country had ever been tarnished in their hands. It would also be a matter for satisfactory reflection, that although, for the present, they were unsuccessful in bringing their great commercial measures to a satisfactory issue they had fairly taken up and proposed them.

They were prevented from conducting them to the grand point they aimed at; but the situation of the next Administration, when placed in such a position as would

enable it to enjoy a greater share of the confidence of both Houses of Parliament, than they had been enabled to possess, would be one of deep responsibility.

The sooner the time arrived which should place them in possession of that greater share of confidence the better; for then he hoped that the cloud which seemed to hang over the opinions of the majority of that House would be dispersed; and that their views would at last become visible; and when that event occurred, if their intended policy should appear to tend towards liberal measures and liberal principles, he was sure he was speaking the sentiments of every noble Lord near him, when he said, they should have their most unanimous and cordial support.

The Earl of Coventry rose amidst loud cries of " question, question," and after silence had been obtained, exclaimed—“ I am the Earl of Coventry; a few words from me. I think the country is in a safe state and I hope to find it placed in the hands of the Duke of Wellington. My Lords, I hope I have not detained you."

The Marquess of Northampton said, that he would never consent to any vote expressing approbation of any Government unless he knew what were the measures which that Government intended to bring forward. The finances of the country now required that somethingshould be done. What could they do? They must adopt the plan recommended by her Majesty's present Ministers-or borrow a loan-or further increase the taxes. Which of these plans were they prepared to adopt? He was bound to confess that whilst he voted for the Address, he did so with reluctance for he disagreed with his noble

friends on the subject of the Sugarduties, and also on that of Corn. He differed with them as to the first point because he thought that the change which they proposed would lead to an increased cultivation of sugar, and that must lead to an encouragement of the slavetrade. He thought that some negotiations might be entered into with the Brazils by which this country would consent to receive their sugar, if they entered into an agreement to abolish slavery. As to the Corn-laws, though perhaps they might be changed with advantage, he did not approve of the fixed duty sanctioned by the Government. The sort of Cornlaw he would support, would be one which contained the qualities both of a graduated scale and a fixed duty.

Lord Brougham in the course of a long speech said, that he should vote in favour of the Address, although he did not wholly approve of the conduct of the Government. After adverting to the extreme fallacy of any arguments upon the Corn-law question, founded on a system of averages, the noble and learned Lord went on to say that he deemed the position in which her Majesty's Ministers stood to be a matter of great regret in a constitutional point of view. In counselling a dissolution of the late Parliament, it did appear to him that his noble friends had been guilty of a great error of judgment. It was wrong towards the state; it was wrong towards the sovereign; and it was doubly wrong towards those questions themselves, which as responsible advisers of the Crown they had brought under the consideration of Parliament. Would the questions suffer nothing by such large majorities pronounced against

them? Undoubtedly a great injury would be done to these measures; they would be sacrificed in a hopeless attempt to prop up the fallen fortunes of a party in power who brought them forward. He would not admit that that was the construction to be put upon the verdict which the country had returned. He thought their Lordships would perceive that the verdict was on one issue and the trial on another, that the country had given its verdict against the men, but that on the subject of their policy no verdict had been given or opinion expressed. The shape in which the measures were brought forward appeared to be another and a very serious impediment to success. The measures were good in themselves. The principles on which they were founded were sound. They were calculated to relieve the trade of the country; but they were not brought forward as measures for relieving that trade. Upon that foundation they could have stood, and stood firmly; but they were brought forward as measures of finance. That was a rotten foundation, and upon that foundation they could not stand. As to the Corn-laws, it was a very considerable improvement upon the sliding-scale to substitute a fixed duty. He was against any sudden total repeal of the Corn-laws, or of what was called the protective duties, but he thought it ought to be gradual yet total, and no doubt in a few years the repeal might be completed. The total repeal of the Corn-laws would certainly reduce the price of corn, but the Minis terial proposition would not at all. He had always argued before their Lordships, and elsewhere, that the agriculturists as greatly exaggerated the effects to be anticipated one

way from the repeal, as the manufacturers did the other way. The Government had not the right to speak of their measure as calculated to cheapen corn, seeing that it could not possibly lower the price of corn one farthing. Still as a measure substituting a fixed duty for a sliding-scale it would produce

most important and most beneficial results. In conclusion, the noble Lord said, that he would vote heartily for the Address.

Their Lordships then divided on the original question, when there appeared; Contents 96; Not contents 168. Majority against Ministers 72.

CHAPTER VIII.

Meeting of the New House of Commons-Election of Speaker-Mr. Shaw Lefevre is proposed by Lord Worsley, seconded by Mr. E. Buller-Sir Robert Peel declares his concurrence, and the Motion is carried without a division-The Speaker returns Thanks-Remarks of Lord John Russell, and Reference made by him to the preceding Speaker-Debate in the House of Commons on the Queen's SpeechThe Address is moved by Mr. Mark Phillips, seconded by Mr. John Dundas-Mr. J. S. Wortley moves an Amendment, negativing the Confidence of the House in the Government-It is seconded by Lord Bruce-The Debate is continued for four nights-Summary of the Arguments of the various Speakers on both sides—Important Speeches of Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell-Division, and Majority of 91 against the Government- Mr. S. Cranford moves another Amendment-It leads to a Division of the Liberal Members: it is rejected by a large Majority-Answer of her Majesty to the Address, as amended-The Ministry determine to resign Office-Their Retirement is announced by Viscount Melbourne in the House of Peers, and by Lord John Russell in the House of Commons-The latter vindicates the course pursued by the Government-He deprecates personal Animosity between Opponents-Speech of Lord StanleyHe disclaims feelings of Enmity towards Lord John Russell-His remarks on the Language of the Royal Speech-Lord John Russell explains-Motions for New Writs on acceptance of Office by the New Ministers-The House adjourns for the Elections-Complete List of Sir Robert Peel's Administration.

THE

HE first business to be performed by the new House of Commons was the election of a Speaker. To this event, on the present occasion, no particular interest was attached, as it was well known that it was not the intention of the Conservative party to offer any opposition to the reelection of Mr. Shaw Lefevre, who had given complete satisfaction to both sides of the House in the preceding Parliament. He was now

proposed by Lord Worsley, who said, that he was sure the leading Members on the other side would gladly be presided over by a Speaker possessing, in so great a degree, the requisite qualifications for the duties of the Chair; and (from the cheers which ensued) he was glad to collect that there was no intention on the other side of proposing a Speaker inexperienced in the affairs of the House. He quoted the favourable opinion pronounced

on Mr. Shaw Lefevre in the last Parliament by Lord Stanley, and added a short panegyric of his

own.

Mr. E. Buller, in seconding the motion, expatiated on the attention, ability, and impartiality, which Mr. Shaw Lefevre had always brought to that important part of his duty which related to private business, and dwelt upon his power of controlling in the Chair the unruly passions of the House. The re-election of Mr. Shaw Lefevre would be a high gratification to those whose original selection of him would thus be sanctioned by another vote in his favour, while it would do honour to the members of that party which had originally opposed him. Mr. Buller proceeded to say, "that whether the House should adopt those measures which he himself thought essential to the public good, or whether an opposite course should be resolved on-murmurs of disapprobation) -perhaps he was deviating from the strict course of the business in which the House was then engaged, and if so, he threw himself upon its forgiveness; but, at all events, the advantage of so competent a Speaker could not fail to be felt in their deliberations."

Sir Robert Peel said, he intended on this occasion to act on the principle for which he had contended in 1835, and on which he had acted in 1837. That was the principle supported by the best precedents. Until the time of Lord North's objection to the reelection of Sir F. Norton, no Speaker in possession of the Chair had been deprived of it by an adverse majority. Mr. Pitt, Lord Grenville, and Lord Grey had acted on the principle he now supported. He admitted, certainly,

that to such a principle there would be a fair exception in the case of an incompetent Speaker; but he was bound, in the present instance, to bear testimony to the merits of a Gentleman who had established in the Chair a moral influence of infinite importance to the due conduct of their proceedings.

Mr. Shaw Lefevre rose to express his gratitude for the commendations bestowed upon him, which he regarded as an ample reward for the toil and responsibility of the Chair. His official experience had taught him to see more clearly than ever the necessity of preserving not only the privileges of the House, but likewise its rules and orders. With that feeling, he should have great apprehensions in resuming the station he had filled, were it not for his reliance on the kindness and support of the House.

Having been then led to the Chair between the mover and the seconder, the Speaker returned his thanks to the House for the honour done to him, and assured them that no effort should be wanting on his part toward the discharge of the duty intrusted to him.

Lord John Russell congratulated the House on the unanimity of their election, and on the qualification of the Speaker elected. It had been his own habit to agree with the present Speaker upon most political and constitutional questions, and he rejoiced to see that both parties equally concurred in this day's choice. In 1835 he had thought that circumstances connected with the personal conduct of Sir C. Manners Sutton made it necessary, that in spite of that gentleman's eminent fitness for the duties of the Chair, another Speaker should be chosen; he had

« TrướcTiếp tục »