The Press.
London, England, 1857-04-04 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

and it was defeated because Lord J. Russel: had at that
time returned from Vienna and made a most warlike
speech. in which he appealed to the spirit of the house and
the country. He was supported by the Prime Minister
with so much apparent sytopathy and cordiality that the
house could not believe the impression wished to convey
was justifiable, and a majority was in favour of the Govern-
ment.

But it so happened that M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the
French Minister present with Lord J. Russell at
Vienna, annoyed that the negotiations had failed, and
that his own Government had not supported him,
resigned his office ; but not only did he do that—he
reveaied ia his own vindication all that had occurred
at Vienna :

It happened, therefore, when Parliament met again
after the holidays that these transactions became matters
of notoriety, and several of the most distinguished mew.
tiers who had spoken and voted against my motion—some
privately, and others publicly in their places in Parlia-
ment—expressed deep regret for the course they had
adopted. In consequence I asked a friend of mine, a
very distinguished member of the House of Commons,
the representative of a neighbouring county, who 1 hope
will be a member of the next Parliament—Sir Bulwer
Lytton—to bring before the house the whole subject of
the Vienna negotiations. He gave notice of a motion with
that object, and what was the consequence? The exist•
ence of the Government was ut stake. An indignant
House of Commons would have terminated the existence
of the Palmerston Cabinet as it terminated the existence
of Lord Aberdeen's Cabinet, and the Government were
only saved by Lord J. Russell coming forward and making
himself their voluntary scapegoat. I am bound to say
that Lord Palmerston offered to sten' or fall by Lord J.
Russell; but, as the majority against Lord Palmerston's
Government would have been overwhelming, Lord J.
Russell himself offered to be the scapegoat, and I must say
in justice to that noble lord, who has incurred so much
unpopularity, that I think such unpopularity undeserved,
because although the terms of peace contemplated were,
in my opinion, unsatisfactory and Ignominious, Lotd J.
Russell as an individual was not responsible fur those
terms, but the responsibility tested upon the Cabinet
which he represented, and upon the Prime Minister of
that Cabinet. (Hear, hear.) It is necessary that sound
ideas should prevail as to the conduct of public men, and
it appears to me requisite to enter into these details in
order that you may not suppose that I deviated from what
I maintain was the patriotic course of the Opposition in
supporting the Government in their conduct of the war by
counselling that the resolution to which I have referred
should be brought forward. I say, then, when we are told
of the energetic manner in which the war was carried on,
that something is due to the parliamentary Opposition of
England during both tile Governments of Lord Aberdeen
arid of Lord Palmerston. (Cheers.)
Peace was at length concluded :

My hon. colleague has given great credit to Lord Pal-
merston for the manner in which he insisted that the terms
on which peace was negotiated should be carried out in
their true spirit. I have also given Lord Palmerston
credit in the House of Commons for that conduct ; but
allow me to tell you that there never would have been a
question about the terms of peace if our negotiator at Paris
had not committed one of the greatest blunders probably
recorded in the history of diplomacy, for he agreed to a
treaty of peace in which the principal object for which we
went to war—namely, the freedom of the Danube—was
entirely omitted. What Lord Palmerston, therefore, de-
serves every credit for is this, that, having discovered that
we had made a very great blunder, and that the country
was deprived of the very object for which such great sacri-
fices of blood and treasure had been made, he determined,
like a true Englishman, not to shrink from his demand,
but to fight out of the blunder, feeling sure the country
would back him ; and at last we got what we might have
obtained without all this bluster and disturbance.

Mr. Disraeli alluded to the conduct of the Opposi-
tion after the conclusion of peace ; and first with re-
spect to the income tax :
The present Government claims very great credit for
taking off the income tax what is called " the war nine.
pence," which might have been cont;nued for another year.
I am gratified, gentlemen, that you are relieved from that
" war ninepence " hut I am not perfectly sure if a certain
notice had no: been given in the House of Commons on
the first night of the last session that you would have got
rid of that taxation. (A laugh and cheers.) All I know
is that the estimates of this country—as I have the highest
authority for stating—were reduced I believe within forty-
eight hours by the amount of 3,0t5),0101., and you have
upon records which anybody may consult evidence that
those estimates which we afterwards had to consider were
originally of much higher amount, for many lords lieu-
tenant of counties received instructions with regard to the
militia which were subsequently suddenly revoked in con-
sequence of the expenditure which the maintenance of that
force would have occasioned. lam not at all quarrelling
with or carping at the Government for making these re•
ductions. Unless the Opposition sometimes performs
such services to the people I don't see what the use of an
Opposition is. One of the duties of an Opposition is to
perform the part of a constitutional critic upon the Govern.
went, and it we succeeded in the object of our criticism I
don't think we ought to " look a gift horse in the mouth."
(Laughter.)

With respect to the income tax as a tax, it was the
opinion of all public men that no scheme for its re-
vision was practicable. It should therefore be
abolished, but before any reduction of taxation could
be effected the expenditure of the country must be
restricted. At present it was most extravagant_
upwards of 0,000,000/. beyond that of 1852 53. But

331

the reduction of expenditure was dependent upon the
general policy of the country :
Without dwelling too much upon this point, I may say
I consider the general policy of tile country, as I have de.
scribed it to be, one which entails considerable expense.
It is a policy which I am told is very popular ; it is a policy
of perpetual meddling in every part of the world, occa-
sioning disturbances which cause expense, and conse •
queotly lead to increased estimates. I am told that this
is a very spirited policy—(laughter)—that there is nothing
like making the influence of England felt, and that there
is nothing"of which an Englishman should be more proud
than to feel that he is like a Roman citizen in every part
of the world. (Laughter and cheers.) But I must say I
generally find that this spirit, which I have described as
turbulent and aggressive," is always exhibited to weak
and not to powerful States. (Hear.) I find that Greece
and Persia and China are perpetually the means by which
the glory of British arms is to be established and illustrated
(" Hear," and a laugh )—but that we receive insults from
Russia and Austria, and that two or three years ago we even
received insults from France, which are passed over in
silence, but which, if these States had been weak, would
have been resented by the presence of admirals and
generals,

The practical effect of this policy is to add to your ex-
penditure 2,000,04/01. or 3,000,0001. a year, and you must
remember, when you consider whether the income tax shall
be reduced to 7d. or rid.. that the difference of 2,0(10.04)0/.
between the sums raised by those rates of duty is probably
the amount of expenditure occasioned by the expeditions
and interferences resulting from your present policy.
have referred to the case of Persia, and I have shown you
that, under difficulties analogous to those which have
recently taken place, we settled the Persian question without
the expenditure of a single shilling. What will the course
adopted by the present Government of Lord Palmerston
cost :he country ? Will your bill be less than 1,000,000/,,
or Id. in the pound of the income tax? How, then, can you
look forward to getting rid of the income tax unless you
exercise strict control over the conduct of the Government
with respect to interference in foreign countries? (Hear,
hear.)

This brings me to the question which it is said led to
the dissolution of Parliament—our interference in China.
I am told the news which has just arrived from China is
itself a justification of the course adopted by her Majesty's
Government. In the first place, however, I am by no
means sure that news is true ; but supposing for the sake
of argument that it is true, I draw a totally different int
fereuce. I draw the inference that if the present Govern-
ment had taken means to act upon the Emperor of China
similar to those adopted by the Government of Lord Derby
with regard to the Shah of Persia, we should probably have
gained all the redress we required without resorting to the
extreme, the wanton, and, I must say, the cruel proceed-
ings to which we have had recourse, which have already
involved us in great expenditure, and which may lead to
increased expenditure.
I say, then, if you want to reduce the taxation of the
country—and all persons at the present day profess a
desire to do so—if you want to get rid of war taxation, and
to fulfil the contract between the Government, the Parlia-
ment, and the people with regard to the income tax, you
must impress upon the Administration of this country
that their perpetual and unnecessary interference with
foreign States, and especially with weak States, is a policy
which you will not sanction. (Cheers.) But if, on the
other hand, you like the excitement of it—if you like to
get up in the morning and hear that Canton is in flames,
or that a sanguinary battle has taken place between the
cavalry of our army and the Persian cavalry—if such ex-
citement as this is necessary for the satisfaction of the
English people, be consistent. Don't complein of your
expenditure ; don't complain of your taxes. Understand
that you must pay war prices for the necessaries of life if
you adopt such a policy. Agree that you will have a per-
petual income tax if you want all this glory which arises
from vanquishing what we are told are barbarian poten-
tates; but don't say, "We will have fireworks and illumi-
nations for constant victories," and at the same time com-
plain if the Government and Parliament call upon you for
increased taxes or for the continuance of war imposts.
(Cheers.)

The right hon. gentleman, expressing his satisfac-
tion at the present dissolution of Parliament be-
cause he believed it would result in the return of
the great political parties with definite opinions, pro-
ceeded to touch upon the great question of parlia-
mentary reform. There were two aspects under
which it might be regarded :

There are parliamentary reformers, who are what are
called moderate men. They are in favoi:r of what is
termed " bit by bit reform." Then there is another class
of men who describe themselves as real and earnest re-
formers, in favour of what are called " comprehensive
measures." I will make one or two brief observations
upon these two classes, not to dictate my opinion to you,
but to offer some suggestions of which you may chew the
cud—(laughter)—during the time that will probably
elapse before I have the honour of meeting you again. I
confess myself, that I am not a " bit by bit " reformer.
There are, I think, many measures of parliamentary
change of a very moderate and partial character, which
appev very plausible when described in newspapers and
speeches; but I have invariably found that a " bit by bit
reform" as regards Parliament always ends in a job.
(Laughter, and Hear, hear." )

Some years ago an immense outcry was made by—l
don't mean the term offensively—the greet Liberal party,
or, in deference to my hon. colleague (Mr. Cavendish t,
will say the Whigs—(a laugh)—against the "lose
boroughs of the Tories, and the people, acting with the
Whigs, said, " This is a most infamous system, and we
will put an end to it," Well, they put an end to the close

332

boroughs of the Tories, but they quite forgot to put an
end to the close boroughs of the Whigs—(cheers and
laughter ),—and ever since I have not found that tee Whigs
were at all inclined to reform in that respect. (Renewed
laughter.) After this great chan4e had taken place, in
the course of events the power of what is called the Con-
servative party—the party opposed to further changes of
parliamentary reform—was chiefly shown in the counties.
The great demonstration of Conservative influence in the
counties may be accounted for upon various grounds.
Many years ago measures menacing the Church were
brought forward, and no doubt the clergy took great in•
Wrest in the principles which were then discussed. Sub-
sequently there occurred a great industrial controversy,
which is now happily settled, and the great body of the
middle class, the largest employers of labour—the farmers
of England—believ.ng that the source of their profit was
menaced by the proposed changes, resented the intended
legisla•ion, and another great Conservative demonstration
took place in the counties. The voice of the counties on
that occasion was ag uinst the Whigs, or the great Liberal
party, and another " bit by bit reform " was proposed,
tampering with the county franchise. I don't give any
opinion as to any uarticular schemes which have been
brought forward upon that subject, but the instant the
close boroughs were against the Whigs they wanted to
destroy them, and the instant the counties were against
the Whigs they proposed a " bit by bit reform "—a
" moderate measure order to affect the seats in the
counties. In both these cases you will find that a party
object was really at the bottom of the measures, which
were not brought forward after deep consideration for the
general benefit of the community ; and therefore I am
entirely opposed to " bit by hit reforms," however plausi-
ble they may appear upon paper.

Then came the " CAnprehensive " measures :
I have myself no superstitious reverence for the Reform
Act of Its 32. I believe that whenever British statesmen
bring forward a measure of that importance their primary
c msideration is the interest of their country, whether they
be Whigs, Tories, or Radicals. That, no doubt, was the
primary consideration of the authors of the Reform Bill;
but there was a strong secondary consideration in the
minds of the framers of that act. The Whigs had been
unfortunately so long out of oflice—(laughter)—that they de-
termined to frame the constituencies of the country in a
spirit which might probably insure their own continuance
in power. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) 1 believe there
is no doubt that all the details of that measure were framed
in opposition to the party with which I sympathise, and
great injustice was done by those details as they affected
the Tory or Conservative party, in respect to the disposi-
tion of political power. I think it very probable that, if a
large reform bill were brought forward by the Tories,
much of that evil might be remedied; but it would be the
greatest disadvantage to the country to have the two great
parties competing tbr power by outbidding each other on
that, of all subjects, in reference to which the general and
permanent interests of the country should be considered.
Because, whatever schemes might he devised by any party
to establish and continue their power, the prescience of man
is limited. and is frequently falsified by the course of
events. I mprudebt measures are often passed for the pur-
pose of effecting a particular object, and afterwards the
mutt expected is never realised. (Hear, hear.) There-
fore, as far as I am concerned, remembering the great
partiality and injustice of the scheme of 1882,1 should look
to any great change in the representation with no prejudice,
because I believe that much of that injustice and partiality
might be remedied.

Among the comprehensive schemes of the day were
two—the ballot and electcral districts:—

The proposition for electoral districts is founded on this
principle—that representation shoul I depend on popula-
tion. A great many say that population and property are
two different things; and, to simplify the argument, I will
ad nit that population and property go together. But the
real point in consider is that population and representation
should go together, and to effect that end it is proposal to
have electoral districts. Now consider the condition of
the country, divided and cut up into different electoral
districts. Remember, there is no longer to be a county of
Buckingham. Buckinghamshire is to be blotted out of
the political map, and probably you would hare depart-
ments, as in France, taking their names from the nearest
rivers. There would be the departments of the Upper and
Lower Thames, and are you prepared to have votes in the
department of the Upper Thames and not to be electors of
Buckinghamshire? Now, I cannot believe that the great
majority of the inhabitants of this country do wish that
such a geographical, political, and social change shoul I
take place as the blotting out and erasing the county of
linckingliani from political existence. [A Voice.—" Why
not ?"] I will tell you why not. My opinion is that the
traditions of the people form part of their national charac-
ter, and that a man cannot see the turfen road of Hamp-
den, along which the great patriot went with his Petition
of Rights; cannot behold the temple dedicated to the
eloquence of Chatham at Stowe, or the oak at Beacons-
field under which Burke meditated his reflections on the
French revolution, without feeling proud of the country
which was adorned by such distinguished characters.
(Cheers.) I want you to consider the question
whether you would put an end to Buckinghamshire
altogether. [A Voice.—" I would disfranchise it alto-
gether."] (Laughter.) Ido not think you are one
of the electors of Buckinghamshire. [The Voice.—" Yes,
am !"] Then you ought not to be. (Cheers and
laughter.) I contend that if you pursue this policy you
put an end fiat only to Buckinghamshire but to the country,
for tee country does not consist of mere animals having a
vote and living on a territory, but of men proud of the past
and hopeful of the future—men who are animated to do
their ditty because they are the succesaora of men who have
done their duty. (Cheers ) Therefore the policy which the
hon. gentleman who hasjust interrupted me professes and

ki.,..