The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-02 00:00:00

UNION RELIEF AID BILL.

On the motion of Sir G, GREY, the house went into
committee pro forma, for the purpose of considering the
amendment which had been previously agreed to, and
resumed.

On the motion that the bill as amended should be consi-
dered,

Mr. HADFIELD, in the absence of Mr. Osborne, moved
the addition of the following clause :—" That no person
shall Jose his vete for a member of Parliament, or a muni-
cipal officer for any city or borough in the said counties or
other places by reason of his receiving parochial relief or
other alms during the continuance of this Act."
Sir J. SHELLEY supported this clause, and contended
that the conduct of the operatives in Lancashire showed
how well fitted this class were for the exercise of their
rights of citizenship; and he appealed to the right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Villiers), who was so consistent a Liberal,
not to press the objectionable measure of the bill.

Sir G. GREY said that the object of the bill was not
to increase the number of persons receiving relief, but to
extend the means of giving relief; and he contended that
the measure would not have the effect which was supposed
by the supporters of this clause.
Mr. COBDEN hoped the clause would not be pressed to
a division, and he thought the subject should be left to the
consideration of the Parliament in the spring. He thought
it would be a gracious act towards the men in the North of
England, who were a manly race, if Parliament at the
next session took the matter up, and he did not apprehend
that any practical injustice would be inflicted under the
provisions of the bill forthe next seven months.
Mr. HADFIELD withdrew the clause.
Mr. LYGON then moved the following clause :—" The
chairman and vice-chairman of the board of guardians of
any union, parish, township, or incorporation, any part
whereof is called upon to contribute in aid to another
union, parish, township, or incorporation shall be entitled
to take part in the proceedings of the board of guardians
administering the relief so contributed, and to vote there-
upon, in like manner as if they were guardians of the poor
within the union, parish, township, or incorporation re-
ceiving the contribution in aid."
Mr. VILLIERS suggested an amendment modifying the
clause.

After some remarks from Mr. Hibbert, Mr. Henley, and
other hon. members, the clause, as amended, was agreed to,
and added to the bill.

Sir G. GREY said he hoped the house would allow the
bill to be read a third time now, in order that it might be
sent to the Upper House this evening, instead of standing
over until the afternoon sitting.
Mr. HENLEY advocated that course under the excep-
tional circumstances relating to the bill. _

Sir J. SHELLEY complained of the lateness of the
period when the bill was introduced.

..Mr. VILLIERS said that originally the boards of guar-
?mus wished to have the subject entirely in their own
bands, and it was not until the exceptional state of the
inali nfacturing districts had arisen
that Government felt
eatiftere_ a f
on to bring g the subject before the house.
Mr, Lyt
new words from Mr. S. Fitzgerald, Sir G. Grey,
The biall ;:ild Mr. D. Griffith,
colivrasvread a third time and passed.
The Lords' tungUR,VEYORS (IRELAND) BILL.
he bill was ordelradlaents to this bill were agreed to, and
$p DS reading.
HIGHLAND
The Lords' amendments to AND BRIDGES BILL.
ordered for third
this bill was also agreed to,
and the bill was
tlird reading.
CONFIRMATION o
This bill was read a third timeS and&LES, &c. BILL.
The sitting was suspended at a Passed.
a quarter past ono until
six o'clock.
At the evening sitting, on the *moue,
that the house at
its rising should adjourn till Monday,
,
Mr. COWPER stated, in reply to Mr. t, Forster
during the recess the public would be admitted
to vi
two houses on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays
:THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNNIRN. visa,
the
at
Mr. COBDEN, who had given notice of his intention
to
offer some observations on the administration of the noble
lord the member for Tiverton, in relation to the legislation
and state of parties in this house, stated that in what he
was about to say he was the exponent of the opinions of
many members of the house, both present and absent. He
did not profess to be a party leader, but he would say that
if a party bad no principle it was a faction and a nuisance;
whilst if it had a principle and violated it such a party was
an imposter. With respect to the so-called Liberal part)) if
he referred to what were formerly its professed principles,
he found them comprised in the words " economy, non-in-
tervention, reform ;" but if that party were now to show
itself in some great fete, with banners and insignia flying,
and their chief at their head with a flag bearing that motto,
he appealed to his hon. friends whether it would not occa-
sion considerable hilarity. On the subject of economy, how
had the Liberal party fulfilled its pledges ? It had signalised
itself as a party in power by a higher rate of expenditure
than was ever known before except in time of war. It had
not only spent more money absolutely, but had been more
extravagant relative to the numbers and the means of the
people, and its government had been the most wasteful that
bad existed for a whole generation. For example, theesti-
matesfor the present financial year for army, militia,
na "221!d fortifications, including the packet service,
amounted to £29,916 000 whereas the estimates for the
same item. in 185 , 1
of the 8-59 when Mr. Disraeli was Chan-
cellorless than those Exchequer,fo were £21,610,000, or 0,306,000
wavilea Current year. How, then, had it
arisen that our
climates during those four years
bad gone on incr
question brought him
necessarily to the neble ierd This
meat, to whose credit he um at the head of the Govern-
Ishseitation in placing this
great and growing expenditure,
noble lord hadlalways
been the first and foremost in all eztr,,...
"gent expenditure
during the last 20 years; and taking Ili—
'''' account the Chi-
nese and Afghan wars, the expeditions hither and thither,

and his fortifications scheme, he believed that since tie year
1840 the noble lord had cost the cottittry at least 100 million
sterling, a price at which, with all his merits, he was very
dear. ROW had the noble lord induced the house to aug-
ment the budget of the Conservative leader 1 y eight mil-
lions P By a constant agitation in favour off xpensive este-
blishments.:Whether in this house, at a Lord Mayor's feast)
at a school or rifle corps meeting, or at a ceremonial at the
Cinque Ports, he had always raised the cry of danger and
invasion from France. The noble lord and his friends came
into power
Upon two grounds : first, that they would give
the country a better reform bill than gentlemen opposite,
and next that they would preserve us on friendly terms
with France. But they had kicked reform out of existence,
and we had heard nothing but the cry of invasion ever since
the noble lord had been in power. In consequence of the
agitation and alarm thus created the people had been pre-
Vented from attending to their domestic affairs, and from
looking after economy in the expenditure of the state. Not
only had the Government wasted the public money upon
armaments, but the ground had thereby been laid for future
expenditure, the extent of which it was impossible to fore-
see; and if this were allowed to continue, the Liberals, as a
party, would rot out of existence, and become so odious that
a Liberal party would not only not be tolerated but stink
in the nostrils of the country. The hon. member then pro-
ceeded to criticise the Chinese policy of the Government,
the end of which he observed would be that China would
be left upon our hands in the same manner that India had
been. For the last seven years our exports to China had
not exceeded three per cent. of the entire exports of this
country. Yet for that miserable fraction we were going to
meddle with four hundred million of people, and pene-
trate into a territory ten times larger than France, and
in a state of complete rebellion. But what the cost of that
interference might be no one could tell. Having also re-
ferred to the measures taken by the Government for the de-
fence of Canada as involving unnecessarily an expenditure
of one million sterling, the hon.member remarked that upon
these grounds the Liberal party had no reason to congratu-
late themselves upon the close of the session. With regard
to the relation of parties in that house, he argued that it
was not an honest state of things; and for this reason, the
noble lord was not governing the country by means of his
own party, but by the party opposite. Why was it that
party had not proposed a vote of want of confidence in the
Administration? Simply because they had more confidence
in the noble lord than in their own chief. To -whom was
the noble lord responsible if he was to carry on his Govern-
ment with the assistance of gentlemen opposite ? The noble
lord was no doubt as good a Tory as any of them—perhaps
better; but what became of government by party? The
fact was that the noble lord was irresponsible. He was a
despot as long as that state of things lasted. True, his cla-
queurs in the press represented him: as a popular Minister,
but test him by his acts, how had he treated his own party ?
He ostentatiously opposed the ballot; he declined to take
up the question of church rates; and under his leadership
all those popular measures in which the Liberal party took
the greatest interest were going backward instead of for-
ward. Upon none of these subjects was the noble lord in
earnest ; and the result was that the whole party became
slack, the principles they advocated lost ground, gentlemen
opposite were allowed to have their own way, and the noble
lord destroyed his own party for the future. Than that the
present state of things should continue he would rather see
himself in opposition,for he was convinced that as long as the
Liberal party remained on that side of the house under exist-
ing circumstances they would became only the more demo-
ralised. Comparing the noble lord with the leader of the Op-
position, he agreed with those whe on the other side wished
to keep the noble lord in power, that the occupation of the
Treasury bench by the right hon. gentleman was quite as
desirable for the Liberal party.
Lord PALMERSTON, in replying, said that if reform
had for the moment been set aside it was not owing to the
Government, but in a great degree to the feeling of the
House of Commons itself ; in a still greater degree to the
general feeling of the constituencies of the country, and
most eminently so to the course pursued by Mr. Cobden
and Mr. Bright. With regard to economy, the hon. mem-
ber had adopted a mistaken criterion of what it meant. He
seemed to think that it consisted simply in not spending
money ; but he (Lord Palmerston) imagined it to be the
judgment which a sensible man formed of the wants of the
moment, and the best means of satisfying them at the least
expense and with the greatest efficiency. It was, there-
fore, most irrelevant to say that in a given year the public
expenditure was so much, and in another given year so
much, unless it could be shown that the circumstances of
the country and the world were precisely the same at each
period. He contended that the measures which the Go-
vernment had taken for the national defence were approved
by the country ; but he disclaimed all blame or merit for
these measures. The expense thereby occasioned had been
the result of the judgment of the Government, the house,
and the country, of what was necessary to maintain the
country in the position among the nations which it was
entitled to occupy. It was idle, then, to say that the merit
or the blame belonged to one individual or another, when
it belonged to the collective judgment of the nation. He
admitted that he had been all along anxious for the honour,
interest, and safety of the country, and it had been his
object, as far as his influence went, to persuade Parliament
and the country to guard against dangers which, if not pro-
-1 vided for, might at any moment come upon them. He was
I ready, therefore, to go to the bar of public opinion with the
hon. member in defence of the measures of the Govern-
ment on the ground of their merit. He denied that it was
intended by the Government to take part in the civil war
in China, or do anything more there than protect
British interests, and pointed to the neutrality which they
had maintained in the contest between the Northern and
Southern States of America in proof that they had honestly
acted upon the principle of non-intervention. He also de-
fended the steps which the Government had taken in de-
spatching troops to Canada, and recurring again to the
question of the fortifications, expressed his belief that the
more the public considered it the more they would agree
that the Government had done their duty. With regard
to the state of parties in. the house, Parliament, he observed,
was no longer divided, as in former times, by a broad line
of demarcation into two parties anagonistic to one another,
and boasted that, during his three years' tenure of office, as
many good and useful measures of progressive improve-
ment had been passed as during any similar period in our
recent history. He was satisfied that the Government pos-
sessed the confidence of the House of Commons and the
country, for they had done their duty; and, having done it,
they deserved the support they had received.
Mr. DISRAELI said he and those with whom he acted
were perfectly content with the present position of the
Liberal party, and he had no desire whatever to interfere
with the gradual, but at the same time rapid progress of
decomposition and demoralisation which seemed to be the
inevitable consequence of the conditions upon which the
present Administration was formed, through the influence
and votes of that self-same Liberal party. The existing
Government were formed for two purposes ; to pass a more
democratic Reform Bill than had been proposed by their
predecessors, and to extricate the country from the danger-
ous position in which the conduct by their predecessors of
our foreign relations had placed it with regard to France.
The noble lord at the head of the Government had ob-
tained the support of the Liberal party by protestations
in favour of reform. That party had made him a
Minister, and the return he made to them was con-
tumely and neglect. With precipitate haste he had
turned out the Government of Lord Derby upon a cry
raised against the policy pursued towards Austria,
and yet within a fortnight afterwards he declared that the
foreign policy of the Cabinet had been chalked out for them
by their predecessors. The noble lord had been three years
in office since the celebrated meeting at 'Willis's Rooms,
and what had he done ? He had given no impetus to Liberal
principles, while he had placed the finances of the country
in a more critical position than had been experienced since
1840. The Government had spent twelve millions sterling
in the most reckless manner upon the dockyards ; the navy
was in an unsatisfactory and perilous condition, and we had
drifted into a war with China, which would lead to a vast
and an indefinite expenditure. In concluding, the right
hon. gentleman referred to the state of parties in the house,
and observed that ever since he had been honoured with the
confidence of the gentlemen surrounding him, his advice to
the Tory party had been to recur gradually to the original
elements and bonds of that great political connection ; to
build up a community, not of liberal opinions, which any
man might fashion according to his taste, but of political
principles; to assert equal rights, civil and religious; to
ZPhold the institutions of the country, because they era-
\
°flied the wants and wishes of the country—to protect us
altka fi.o
to r • ra individual tyranny and popular outrage—equally
cia: ultot
ademtv ocracy and oligarchy, and to fa our that prin-
semits,foree aristocracy which was the only basis and
03,,Zylustitutional government ; to guard the honour of the
from that euebarmld to protect its interests, but to shrink
general to distrattteploraacy which was only suited in
aZunkriaind of a community from internal
improvement; to li
administer the public eeaateaxation ; frugally but wisely to
beeti USO it was the be ~,,:a; to favour popular education,
local government, and M tZ:47,,,f°' public order ; to protect
as for the peerailattoo offor the rightshs of the
illanf
the Senate. Then© e the rnd the
P re
lated Tory statesmen; Ze once the principles
which regu
party should ever be 'it 33.0 f had
on the
or oneno
corking i
viie,res
0.
To ry
in Power unless
they practised thera..
tions from Mr. Le ,„
After some obsere a
wish I hat the
foreign - ---s. expendi-
ture, the subject dropped.
11INISTRATION.
NAVAL ADi
policy of the Government and d0ck,,,,T1
Sir M. PETO renewed the motion relating to naval
was counted out on T ads
ministration, on which the house
.3 l
day evening, contending that the uePartment required ee
the public could
form, and that, under the existing system,
.
never receive an equivalent for the expen
ditureWere some
Lord C. PAGET, while admitting there
extremely
defects in the system, observed that it would be e
difficult to substitute another more satisfactory. The
Admiralty, at all events, wanted no change.
THE SUEZ CANAL.

In reply to Mr• GnaPlTra,
Mr. LAYARD stated that it was true that 25,003 men
were employed by forced labour on the Suez Canal, but that
there were no treaties between this country and the Peelle