The Press. — London, England, 1856-08-02 00:00:00

724 REVIEW OF THE SESSION. MR. DISRAELI, pursuant to notice, moved, on the 25th ult., for a return of the number of public bills and their titles, the orders for which in any of their stages have been discharged during the present session, and the date of the discharge of each of such orders. The right hon. gentleman said : Sir, I wish before we disperse to ask the house to consider the course of public business during the present session of Parliament. I take this step with no intention of preferring any indictment against those who are mainly responsible for the management of affairs in this house. I have never deemed that the last day of the session afforded the most convenient or the most fair occasion for prosecu• ting a party attack, and I should not have made the motion I am about to place in your hands were I not convinced that there are great evils and even dangers connected with our present position, and did I not believe that, in the course of this discussion, some suggestion may perhaps be thrown out which may, during the long recess, produce an influence upon the public mind, and may lead to the application—when we meet again—of some remedy for those grievances which I am about to bring under your notice. Sir, the course T am taking is one which is not usual. It is a course, as I have already said, which I think ought not to be resorted to as a weapon of party warfare, and the history of our proceedings shows that it has not been our habit to have recourse to it with that object. Indeed, on looking for precedents for the course 3 have adopted, I am not aware that there is more than one to which I could refer as an autarity, and that precedent it would not become me to ad , for it was made by myself in the year 1848, when I felt it my duty to ask the house to consider the course of public business during the session then about to close. I think, sir, that reference may at least acquit me, or others, of taking advantage habitually of occasions of this kind to disturb the serenity which should attend the last hours of our companionship, or of having seized such opportunities to express opinions adverse to the Ministry which I should prefer to express in the course of the session, when, if defeated in argument unfairly, I might recur to the subject, and when the Government could not say that at the end of their labours they were called upon unexpectedly to vindicate a course which they might not under such circumstances have an opportunity of cum• pletely defending. In 1848 I made a motion similar to that which is now upon the table of the house, and think I may be acquitted of having been influenced on that occasion by any party feeling, because the gentlemen who then sat upon the Ministerial benches had only recently attained them ; and I believe J may say with truth, that they had gained their position mainly by the efforts of my friends and myself. It was certainly with no desire to disturb them in the occupation of those benches, or to damage their reputation in the country, that I felt it my duty, in the exigency which existed in 1848, to call upon the House of Commons to consider what they hail accomplished in the session which was then on the point of terminating. That session was, I believe, one of almost unparalleled duration in the annals of Parliament. The Nouse of Commons had sat for ten consecutive months, and it is not to be denied that at the end of that time the account of our labours was of a very fruitless character. Great dissatisfaction and discontent prevailed throughout the country in consequence, and many reasons were urged and many causes were alleged why so prolonged a sitting had been productive of such slight and unsatis factory results. It was said then—an , l this was a very prevalent mode of accounting for the mortifying circumstances I have mentioned—that the forms of the house were in fault, that they were not suited to the age in which we live, and to the multifarious and multiplied transactions with which we have to cope. Again, it was said that another cause which produced these unsatisfactory results was the too frequent discussions which took place in this house. It was said that there existed on the part of members of Par liament too great a desire to express their opinions, and too much eagerness to debate the questions which were submitted to their consideration. It appeared to me that both these allegations had a very dangerous tendency at all times, but especially in 1848, because Parliament was then young, and there were, I believe, 280 new members in the house. Nothing, J apprehend, is more to be depre cated than that men who have recently entered this house, and who, consequently, have no great experience as to the mode in which our proceedings are conducted, should be lieve that in the standing orders and forms of the house there are obstacles to the satisfactory prosecution of public business. Those who are acquainted with the proceedings of this house know that its forms have been framed after deep thought and mature experience, and that the allega tion to which I have referred has little foundation. The second charge, that the members of this house were too prone to discussion, was one which ought always, I think, to be received with great suspicion ; for what is this house if it is not a house of discussion ? It is a House of Parliament, and its very name denotes its elm rac!er. It is a house of free and ample speech. and what ever questions there may be as to the policy of our legis lation, however little the labours of our investigating com mittees may be appreciated, I have always thought, and I still think, that the main claim we have upon the con fidence, and I hope the affection, of the people is this — that there is a general, a prevalent, and a well-formed con viction in the country that there is at least one place in England where, in the long run, truth will always be elicited. Weil, sir, at that time so anxious—and naturally anxious—were the Government of the day to avail them selves of any plausible excuse to divert from themselves the rising odium which attended the results of our parlia mentary labours that the Prime Minister absolutely pro- THE PRESS. posed and nominated a committee to inquire into the subject of the forms of the house, and to ascertain whether those forms really were obstacles to the conduct of public business, and how they might be modified in order to facilitate its prosecution. The noble lord the member for the city of London, who was .:hen Prime Minister, was a member of that committee. Among its other members were the late Sir R. Peel, the late Mr. Goulburn, the right hon. member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) I believe, and Mr. Cobden ; and the committee had also the advantage of the valuable experience and judgment of the hon. member for Mahon. I, also, was a member of the committee, and we gave great attention to the subject. We examined a member of the American House of Assembly with respect to the rules which applied to public business in the United States. We examined an illustrious exile then in this country, who had been Prime Minister of France, and who was a great master of debate—M. Guizot—on the subject, and the results of the deliberations of the committee are now among the records of this house. I did not want the information I obtained as a member of that committee to convince me that it was neither the forms of the house nor freedom of discussion that had pre vented the satisfactory accomplishment of public business in 1848; and it was in accordance with the feelings and at the desire of many of my friends that I undertook the laborious task of reviewing a session which had lasted for ten months, and of proving, I hope—however I may have failed in other objects—that neither of the causes alleged had the slightest influence upon the course of public busi ness during that session, and of vindicating, as I trust completely, the House of Commons in that respect. It is for the same object, and actuated by the same feel ings, that I have brougbt forward this motion to-day. I do not think it is a motion that ought to be made except in particular circumstances, and circumstances of great emergen.q. I think it is of the utmost importance that we should discover what is the cause of that general discontent and dissatisfaction with the labours of this house which could not have been anticipated in the session, but which, I think, it is almost acknowledged has within the last six weeks or two months suddenly arisen in the public mind. I will admit that I do not by any means maintain that it is a matter of course on the part of the Minister of this country to be too prone to legislation. On the con trary, I think that the Minister is the last member of this house who should interfere in matters of that kind. I think that, as a general rule, it is beat that the Minister should not interfere with any subject which requires legislation unless he feels convinced he can deal with it satisfactorily and conclusively. I should say that when there may be questions that greatly interest the public mind, though there may be a restless and, even in a certain degree, a rational feeling in the nation that these questions should be dealt with, it is possible that the time may not be ripe for their solution, and in these circum• stances they rather fall to the lot of independent members of this house, who may shape their preliminary discussion, and by imparting knowledge and ultimately eliciting truth place them in a position with which the Minister, ulti mately, may advantageously deal with them. Therefore, sir, I should never impute blame to any Minister if I found that he was somewhat reserved in the matter of legislation, and was not prepared to ask the house to sanction measures upon any great topics unless lie felt convinced that there was an urgent necessity for their introduction. In that way, I can conceive a state of affairs in which a Minister, anxious to do his duty to his Sovereign and his country, may yet discharge that duty in Parliament by merely asking the house to fulfil theirhighest function— viz., that of granting supplies to her Majesty for the ser• vices of the State. He may not feel it to be his duty, or necessary, to ask for the attentive consideration of the house to questions of another character. Again, I can easily believe this—for I am anxious to state the case as fairly as possible—that though a Minister may be conscious that there are subjects of great im portance that demand the. consideration of Parliament, yet there may be circumstances at the moment which would not authorise his soliciting the judgment of Parlia ment regarding them. The country may be involved in war in a great struggle—and I can understand the Minister then—though he may be of opinion that there are subjects of internal interest that require a speedy and ultimate settlement,—holding the opinion that, in a crisis of that nature, all the exigencies of the Government being re• quired to prosecute the war, he has a right to appeal with confidence to the forbearing spirit and temper of Parliament, and not bring forward those measures. I can also conceive that there may be another occasion in which a Minister may find he has a claim to legisla tive forbearance. We may not be positively at war, but we may be on the point of accomplishing a peace. All the intelligence and vigilance of the Ministry may be required to carry on the important negotiations which are to con clude the war in which we may be engaged, and to form the foundations of a settlement that may possibly insure the enduring peace of Europe. In these circumstances I also can easily conceive that the Minister may be justified in not applying to Parliament for any legislation but such as may be necessary to insure the supplies for the year. But these three pleas the noble lord cannot avail him self of, should he think it right to answer the frank and fair criticism which I may offer on the course he has pur sued. The noble lord, in the first place, cannot say to night that it is his opinion we have legislated enough, and that there are no pressing questions of greet importance which require our attention, because the noble lord has voluntarily, in this session of Parliament, introduced to our notice not only questions of great importance, but, as I think I shall be able to show, a greater number of questions of great importance than probably any Minister ever intro duced to Parliament. Nor can the noble lord avail him- self of the second plea, that, this country being involved in war, and in a considerable struggle, Parliament had no SATURDAY, right to expect that any of these legislative proposals should have been made to them, because the noble lord at the commencement of the session, when the country was in a state of war, advised her Majesty in her gracious Speech, while she thanked her faithful Commons for the devoted mattner in which they had supported her in the struggle, to recommend them to give their attentive consi. deration to many subjects of internal importance. Nor can the noble lord avail himself of the third plea, that, though the state of war might have terminated, important nego tiations for peace were the reason why he could not bring forward legislative measures of importance, because, besides the measures which, in a time of war, the noble lord re. commended her Majesty to call our attention to, and after those negotiations for peace had commenced, he added other measures, that are not of secondary importance, ca which he solicited the consideration of Parliament. There. fore I think I need not argue the question whether legisla tion on important questions is necessary or not, because, so far as the Ministry are concerned, they are my principal witnesses that legislation, and legislation on a great scale, is necessary. We need not appeal to a state of war as an apology for the conduct of the Government, nor to nego. tiations for peace as an excuse for their behaviour, because it will be shown to the house in the course of my observa tions that, in a time of war, the noble lord recommended her Majesty to invite our attentive consideration to many questions of internal improvement, and that when nego tiations for peace commenced he introduced further and, if possible, still more important measures. I wish to guard myself in a statement of this kind from any language that would savour in the slightest degree of exaggeration. I have stated that the noble lord has, in the course of this session, introduced to our notice measures of great importance, and perhaps a greater number of measures of great importance than probably any Minister that ever occupied that bench. I think I shall be able to substantiate that statement without mentioning many measures the magnitude of which, when I refer to them in detail, will speak for themselves, but yet of secondary interest compared to the principal features of the legisla tive scheme of this year. Let me remind the house now of some of the principal subjects that have been brought under our consideration. We have been asked, in the first place, to construct a high court of appeal, the highest court of appeal in the last instance. All will acknowledge that that is a question which may be described as the greatest of legal questions. In all countries it may be described as the greatest of legal questions ; but in this country it is more than the greatest of legal questions, because it is also the greatest of e onsti• tutional questions, for, in having to consider the creation and constitution of a high court of appeal, we have, from the nature of our institutions, not only to fulfil that great object, but we have incidentally to consider the very elements of a Senate, or rather of an Upper Chamber. We have been called upon this year to consider a new law of partnership, framed upon new principles and adapted to this advanced age, which should facilitate the application of capital to commerce in the most commercial country in the world. We have been called upon to con sider the whole law of divorce and an important change in the law of marriage. We have been called upon to con sider the whole discipline of the Church; the testamentary jurisdiction of the country; the police of the country ; a reform of the most ancient, the most wealthy, and the most powerful municipality, intimately connected with the history and liberties of England; the superannuation of the whole civil service of the country; the criminal apprc priation of trust property; the education of a whole king dom ; the retirement of bishops from their sees; and last. but not least, the correct means of ascertaining the mos important produce of the empire by a system of agricult tureel statistics. Why, sir, these are not light questions. They are not only among the most grave that concern a State, but they involve the very principles upon which society itself is based. Sir, Ido not know that I can place the legislative scheme of the Ministry more fairly before the house than by referring to the Speech from the Throne at the com mencement of the session, and reminding the house of the propositions that then, upon the highest sanction and au thority, were submitted to our consideration. There were four measures, or, I would rather say, four series of measures which, in the heat of war, her Majesty recommended to our attentive consideration. The first — which was the simplest—applied to the assimilation of the mercantile law of England and of Scotland. The second was that improvement in the law of partnership, founded altogether upon new principles and aiming at the increased application of capital to commerce, to which I have already referred. The third was a measure which was to relieve the mercantile marine of this mercantile country from charges of great weight under which it had long laboured, and against which it had long complained. The fourth series of measures, and perhaps the most important, con sisted of large and extensive reforms, first in the law of Great Britain, and next in the law of Ireland. These, sir, were the measures which at the commencement of the ses sion, in a time of war, were recommended, to use the lan guage of the gracious Speech, to the " attentive considera tion " of the House of Commons. How have we dealt with these four series of measures ? With respect to the first question—the assimilation of the mercantile law of England and Scotland—l cheerfnlly admit that the Government may he considered to have fairly redeemed their pledge. A measure to change the mercantile law of Scotland has now passed, I believe, both houses, and a measure to change the mercantile law of England was introduced in this house. It contained. in deed, a principle of the most dangerous kind, which aimed at terminating the necessity in commercial transactions of written contracts; but the practical sagacity of the House of Commons, and the protest of the whole commercial community, saved the country from the dangers of that unfortunate proposition. That portion of the bill was de feated, and the measure so amended was passed. We may