The Press. — London, England, 1854-07-15 00:00:00

652 tedious. Three instances, however, occur which from the importance of the debate, or the interest at the time attaching thereto, merit notice. On February 28 Mr. CHAMBERS moved for a committee to inquire into the state of nunneries, &c., throughout the British dominions. Minis tern opposed the motion, which was neverthe less carried by 186 to 119—majority, 67. On May 23 Sir W. CLAY moved for leave to bring in a bill abolishing church rates. Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed him, and was de feated by 129 to 62—majority, 67. On June 12 Mr. SPOONER moved to omit an item of 5501. from the estimates for payment of Roman Catholic chaplains. He carried his motion, after much debate, by 158 to 136—majority, 22. The debate on the admission of Dissenters to Oxford must be in the memory of all readers. Government, sheltering itself under the plea of anticipated opposition from the Lords, ob jected to Mr. HEYWOOD'S first clause, the pur port of which was to do away with tests at the time of matriculation. The clause passed by a majority of 91. Then, conscious of having lost his control over the House, and preferring surrender to defeat, Lord JOHN spontaneously acceded to the second clause. by which non conformists were admitted to a share in the governing power. Mr. WALPOLE, on the im pulse of the moment, seized the vacated post of leader, divided against the clause, and threw it out; thus giving Ministers the victory of which they had despaired, and which possibly some among them did not desire. On two recent occasions, besides those men tioned, a certain defeat was avoided by timely concession, or rather by a surrender at discre tion. Mr. CARDWELL spoke against the limi tation of commercial liability, but gave way to the expressed feeling of the House, and suffered the resolution in its favour to pass unanimously. Lord PALMERSTON in like man ner resisted Mr. MILNER GIBSON'S resolution whereby the newspaper stamp duty was con demned; but finding, from the state of the House, that a division must go against him, gracefully sacrificed his opinion to the neces sity of the case. We have thus five measures announced in the royal speech rejected or withdrawn ; eight Government defeats on other questions (be sides many of minor consequence) ; and two resolutions involving important principles carried against the avowed opinion of Minis ters without a vote being taken. In all, fifteen failures within five months, not balanced by a single success, unless the un opposed Coasting Trade Bill and the much altered Oxford Bill can be designated as such. This is not all. The Cabinet whose preten sions were so lofty, whose parliamentary strength it was idle to resist, has not only been engaged in one perpetual internal quar rel, but has been unable to prevent its dissen sions from becoming notorious. Within the last twelve months not less than nine admi nistrative changes have occurred. Resigna tions have been tendered without apparent cause, and retracted without a syllable of explanation One Minister has been ignomi niously ejected from office without the shadow of a cause, except that his place was wanted for another. One has retired under circum stances of personal discredit, to which pity for the fallen restrains us from alluding fur ther. Mr. BAINES resigned because he was not consulted in the affairs of his own depart ment, and took office again for no visible reason except that he was invited to do so. Lord GRANVILLE'S dignity and Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S much-vaunted disinterestedness have equally suffered by the recent causeless changes. The relations which bind Lord PALMERSTON to a Cabinet of which the two leading members are his declared enemies remain still inexplicable. The days of the Coalition are numbered. No one now asks whether they will fall, but when I The more clearsighted among them desire a breakup, and deprecate a continuance in office by which they can only be injured. How long this provisional state of things may last we cannot foresee. Only this we know, that neither Parliament nor the country will en (lure another session like the last, and that the conduct of a great and perilous war ought not to be entrusted to hands too feeble for the ordinary routine of peace. THE PRESS. V rotteVings in V arliament. THE TENANT-RIGHT BILLS. The attempt to carry these bills through committee on Tuesday morning having closed with an announce • ment from Sir J. YOUNG that the Government would not press them further during the session, Mr. NA PIER, in the evening sitting, complained of the course which the Ministry had pursued with regard to those measures, and of their treatment of himself person ally in connection therewith. Time not then per- ' mitting him to enter into full explanations on the subject, an opportunity was afforded on Thursday night, when the state of the case as it lay between Mr. Napier, the Government, and the lush tenant right question, formed the subject of prolonged de bates in both houses. In the Commons Mr. NAPIER himself entered into a detailed history of the bills which were now to be abandoned. He described his own connection with them as original framer in the year 1862 ; the discussions upon them both in Lords and Commons, and the changes they had undergone in select committee, or while passing through succes sive stages in the Upper House during the present session. Three bills, ne said, had gone before the select committee of the Peers—one for giving " leasing powers," another for arranging the terms of holding land between landlords and tenants, and a third entitled the " Tenants' Compensation Bill." This last had been rejected by the committee, but the two former were returned, and, having passed the House of Lords, were sent down to the Commons. During all this time he had taken much trouble in watching and perfecting the measures, but the Go vernment had taken their actual management in the Legislature out of his hands, professing a full con• sciousness of their great importance, and leading him to believe, even up to the previous Tuesday, that they fully intended to carry them through this year. At the last moment, however, he learnt that they were to be thrown over, and all the labour bestowed upon them rendered abortive. He contended that there was no sufficient cause for thus deserting the bills, and pointed out that the excuses offered for that step by Sir J. Young were altogether futile. Mr. Napier then appealed to the house to pronounce whether such conduct was fair and honourable on the part of the Government, who had invited his co-operation and made use of his exertions. Towards Ireland he declared that their course presented a complete de lusion, bolding up the pretence of settling a most im portant controversy, and then deceiving expectation in the end. Sir J. YOUNG remarked that the complaint now urged was twofold—first, of personal discourtesy; and next, of public expediency. For the first, if well founded, he expressed his sincere regret, declaring that it was altogether unintentional. The latter, he said, was a mere matter of opinion. Sir J. Young then proceeded to explain and justify his conduct towards the bills in question. The Government had been sincerely anxious to settle the landlord and tenant controversy, and he himself had honestly en deavoured to perfect and carry the measures laid before Parliament on the subject. Unexpected op position had, however, sprung up; the whole day sitting on Tuesday was consumed in debating whe ther the bill should be allowed to make any progress in committee; and he had since been earnestly en treated to hold the matter over until the measure arranging the correlative question of tenant compen sation could be considered and prepared. Yielding to these various motives, he had determined to post pone legislation until next session; and, whether the measures were deemed as private or as Ministerial bills, he contended that this resolve had been dis creet and fair. Lord J. RUSSELL interposed an appeal to the Opposition to let the subject drop. Precedence had been given to the bill before them that night, not under any idea of making progress with it, but to afford an opportunity for certain explanations. These having been exchanged, he trusted they might be allowed to proceed with real business. This appeal was, however, disregarded. Mr. White side reiterated and enforced the charge against the Government. Mr. Lucas and Mr. J. Fitzgerald followed in a like strain, and demanded what the real intentions of the Ministry were on the subject of tenant right. Lo rd J. RUSSELL again rose, and, after recapitu lating a serious catalogue of the troubles and diffi culties that beset the question, ventured to hope that some measure enlarging and settling the "leasing powers "of Irish landowners might hereafter become law. W ith regard to the code of landlord and tenant law, or the question of tenant's compensation, he could hope nothing, at all events so long as this con troversy was surrounded with so much excitement and passion as at present. The discussion was continued by other members until Mr. DISRAELI rose, and, after paying a tribute to the energy and sincerity of Mr. Napier, commented SATURDAY, upon the mingled inefficiency and inconsistency of the reasons assigned for abandoning the bills. One excuse was that the two remaining measures were useless and incomplete without the Tenants' Com pensation Bill ; but this imperfection, he said, was known in February last, and should have been urged then. Another plea was based upon the advanced period of the session to which they had arrived, and which gave no time to carry the measure. But for this procrastination the Government were responsi ble, and how could they account for it? What work done could they show as a reason for delaying the progress of so important a bill?— " What have we been doing that we couldn't consider and attempt to settle a question, not introduced for the first time, but years ago, to the consideration of Parlia ment? What have her Majesty's Ministers being doing the last six months that we have not had this question fairly considered and ably arranged? (Cheers.) I want to know what is the catalogue of their legislative exploits which may be an excuse for the period which has been thus employed or thus wasted? I want to know, if they have been at war, what conquests they have achieved? I want to know, if they have been at peace, what beneficial arrangements, what advantageous legislation, they have accomplished? ( Cheers.) Have they reformed Parlia ment? Have they revised parliamentary oaths? Have they educated the country? Have they even educated Scotland? (Cheers and laughter.) What corporations that are corrupt have they punished? What have they done which may be a valid excuse for not having dealt with this all-important measure ? (Cheers.) I should have thought that, instead of moving to report progress, it would have been more satisfactory to the country, and more satisfactory to the feelings of any minister who pre tends that he leads the House of Commons, if he bad given some reason why six months should have elapsed in which they, having done nothing, should not have done this. Report the progress of these two bills l Why, it is too derisive a proposition to be made. (A laugh.) Report the progress of the Ministry ! (Cheers.) Tell us what they have done. Make a motion to that effect. Report the progress of her Majesty's Ministers! Come forward and tell us what her Majesty's Ministers have done, and that would be a reporting of progress far more edifying and satisfactory than the motion which has been made by the Lord President this evening. If the noble lord and his compeers have not succeeded yet in dealing with this difficult question—at any rate, vast and difficult as it is, the late Government attempted to deal with it with some efficiency and with all sincerity—what is the prospect which the noble lord holds out of the future legislation of his Government—if it be a Government—upon this sub ject? (A laugh.) I would ask the noble lord vho tells you he can do nothing at present, whether he will answer the question, what are the intentions of his Government with respect to the tenure of land in Ireland for the future t I think that that was a very fair parliamentary question. How it was met I leave the committee to decide. The noble lord says that it's a difficult question, and, therefore, we are not to deal with it. My idea of a Government is, that it is a body of men who ought to deal with difficult questions. (Cheers.) I know that the Lord President, for a number of years, has, somehow or other, contrived to govern this country—personally speaking, I think with admirable ability—that he is a ripe scholar, an unparal leled debater, in my opinion no uncommon orator—still I think that the secret skill of his administration has always been that he has evaded questions that are difficult. (Cheers and laughter.) But Ido not think that that is a satisfac tory answer to the gentleman who addressed that query." Reverting to the complaint urged by Mr. Napier, Mr. Disraeli considered it well founded, but feared that the right hon. member had shown too much sensi bility. Had he been consulted, he should have dig shaded him from making his appeal, on the ground that the Administration treated him no worse than its members were obliged to treat one another, perfidy being necessary to the existence of the Coalition. Lord J. RUSSELL complained that the question before the house had been converted by Mr. Disraeli into a means for making a party attack on the general conduct of the Government. He then explained some passages in his own conduct towards the Irish tenant question, and, referring to the mode in which that question had been treated by the Government of Lord Derby, endeavoured to fix a charge of incon sistency or ill faith upon the members of that Ad ministration. The noble lord went on to accuse Mr. Disraeli of violating the traditional rules of party warfare in the house : " There is another plan which the right hon. gentleman does find within his power—that is, to lie in wait for mo tions which are made by independent memberir, and whatever the colour of the motion, provided there is no great principle involved immediately disastrous in its con sequences, then the right hon. gentleman has influence with his party; and gentlemen who have not much ate tended to the question are ready to follow his lead, and then he pursues one undeviating course, and that is, what ever may be the question, to endeavour to put the Govern ment in a minority—l Hear, hear)—and then to take his chance of saying their measures have failed, and that motions which they had opposed had been carried. It is certainly a conduct which is somewhat new to me. (Laughter.) Because 1 have been opposed to Govern ments, led by such men as Sir R. Peel, and leaders like Sir R. Peel, and others who preceded him in the leadership of that party, when they found that their opinions led them to oppose the Government, they naturally and fairly justified their votes, but they never thought of coining down to this house merely to take up any motion which • • e i It It r. ,e ly ch 11111a111