THE CONDUCT OF MINISTERS RESPECTING 13. THE AMENDMENTS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. BY J. A. ROEBUCK, M.P. LOCAL COURTS IN BOROUGHS. By T. F. MR SPRING RICE AND THE APPROPRIATION ACT. BY H. S. CHAPMAN. EDITED BY J. A. ROEBUCK, M.P. [PRICE THREE HALFPENCE.] THE CONDUCT OF MINISTERS RESPECTING THE AMENDMENTS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. SOME time since I asked, "WHAT OUGHT THE MINISTERS to do?"-We are now in a position to answer the question, “What have Ministers done ?" On Monday, the 31st of August, a large body of the Liberal Members of the House of Commons assembled, in order to hear from the Ministry what course they intended to pursue. Be'fore going to this meeting, I had passed many hours in anxious conversation with some of the most hearty friends of the popular cause. Every one of these persons was fully conscious of the importance of the occasion, and well aware of the great question now at issue between the Lords and the People. They all of them felt that it was now to be ascer tained, whether the Reform Bill was to ⚫ be something more than a mere piece of parchment. The object of the Reform Bill, they said (and said truly), was to prevent the House of Lords ruling this country, by means of a corrupt majority in the House of Commons. The purport of that measure was not simply to prevent a corrupt majority from ruling, but also to take away the governing power from those who directed and ruled this majority. For the purpose of carrying out this intent, the Reform Bill provided that a majority of the House of Commons should be elected by the People; and it was anticipated that the wishes of the People, as expressed by their representatives, would and could meet with no effectual opposition. But it is now evident, we said, that the Lords have not yet acquiesced in this arrangement. They have here opposed themselves to the whole nation, and have brought to issue From the Steam Press of C. & W. REYNELL, 14, 15, & 16 Little Pulteney street, Haymarket. the question, "Is this country to be governed according to the wishes of the many millions who compose the nation, or according to the wishes of the few dozens of persons composing the House of Lords?" If the Lords now prevail, the question will be answered in their favour. Heretofore the Lords governed by means of a majority chosen by themselves and sent into the House of Commons. Should we now yield, they will hereafter govern by compelling the majority elected by the People so to shape and fashion every measure as to make it agreeable to their Lordships. The real effect will be the same in both cases, and the Reform Bill will be a nullity. Such was the view we took upon this important occasion. It cannot, there fore, be deemed wonderful, if we looked to the result with no ordinary anxiety. When I arrived at the meeting of Members I was cheered and my expectations were raised by the feelings manifested by the large majority present. Not to yield appeared to be the general determination; and most (as far as I could judge) were content to lose the labour of this year, rather than lower their own dignity, and thus compromise the interests of their constituents. All seemed to understand that, even supposing we were to be disappointed now, the next year must bring a far more sweeping and effective ceeded to explain the determinations of the Ministry, shewed that no spirit was wanting on the part of their supporters. Lord JOHN RUSSELL commenced by observing on the mode in which our Bill had been treated by the Lords, and explained to us the manner in which he intended to remark on those proceedings. Here, where spirit and firmness were manifested, he was cheered and supported warmly, ay, enthusiastically. This enthusiasm, however, soon cooled under the refrigerating influence of his Lordship's eloquence. We but too soon perceived that no call was about to be made on our resolution. Compromise was the order of the day, and the Ministry made us feel, that what this crisis was about really to determine was wholly beyond their ken and understanding. The sole thing they were looking at was the Municipal Bill; while the principle involved in the dispute between us and the Lords seemed wholly to have escaped their consideration. No sooner was the example thus set by Lord JoHN RUSSELL, than the majority, who, a few minutes before, were ready firmly to support the bill, began to find reasons for wavering. The grand business was to sing the praises of the bill, even as mutilated by the Lords, and the general cry was, "it contains so much that is good, that we must take it. We are indeed sorry that any thing is to be given up, and we protest against its being believed, that by yielding we give up our opinions, or recede from our principles. We yield to necessity. We believe that the advance made by the measure as it stands, will give us a vantage ground for further advances. We therefore take what the Lords choose to afford us." Having, under the influence of the Ministry, quickly made up their minds to concession, the next point was to know what concessions were necessary, in order to gain their Lordships' assent. The wishes and the welfare of then ation was no longer our guide: all that we had to govern us, was the good pleasure of the Peers. They who most keenly felt the degradation to which they were about to submit, were extremely anxious to declare that they would accede to no change which affected the principle of the bill. As every one settled for himself what the principle of the bill was, this declaration was safe, and exceedingly convenient, Amidst this chorus of submission, one person alone✶ gave utterance to his feelings of repugnance to the course about to be pursued. That person was Mr GROTE, the member for London. Unfortunately, he was content with a brief statement of his feelings upon the occasion. Placed as he is by his acquirements and his wealth, in a very commanding position, a determined and active opposition on his part would have gone far materially to check the desire to concede, then so prevalent among the followers of the Ministry. His disgust, however, led him too easily to despair. To save his own dignity and honour, was, he believed, all that he could accomplish. A man of more sanguine and vehement temperament would have done this, and saved his country at the same time. His position gave him a power which hardly any other person in that assembly possessed. Discontented, if not disheartened, by the turn which things had taken, I went down to the House of Commons because my duty compelled me to be present. But never before was that duty so irksome. I was compelled to be present, and to view the unwise, not to say degrading, submission of the Com It ought, however, to be stated, that Mr BERNALL objected strongly to yielding on the subject of qualification. He even went so far as to say, that he should oppose the Ministers. In the House he did not persevere in this, mons of England, to a few ignorant, irresponsible, and interested Peers; I was forced to witness an act that I was certain would entail on the People years of toil and anxiety, and perhaps eventually lead to a disastrous conclusion. The crowded avenues to the House shewed the anxiety of the People. Every one seemed to understand the critical nature of our position except the Ministers, to whose judgment our fortunes were confided. Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S speech, in which he explained the concessions he proposed, was weak, common-place, and wholly inadequate to the occasion. It was clear that he knew not what was at issue. The thing present before his mind, and which chiefly occupied his attention, was his own tenure of office. He gave convincing proof that he was totally unconscious of the fact that the very nature of our future government was depending on the manner in which this question was to be settled. He confined all his observations to the Municipal Bill, and dwelt with great emphasis, and at extraordinary length, upon each petty alteration he was suggesting. That the whole business of the session was thrown away; that every reform in the manifold abuses in Ireland had been contemptuously rejected; that the Lords, for the sake of their own private interests, had checked, thwarted, and insulted the Commons of England,-all this was passed over in silence. A few empty and unmean ing phrases about dignity and firmness, some conventional nonsense about the independence of each House of Par liament, was all that he deigned to utter upon the real matter in dispute. It was indeed the speech of a Duke's son and a Duke's brother, playing the part of a popular leader. When Lord JOHN RUSSELL sat down, another actor appeared upon the scene-Sir ROBERT PEEL, in the character of mediator between the Lords and Commons. A selfish cunning was never more thoroughly evinced, than in the speeches and doings of that right honourable gentlemen on that memorable night. Every sentence, every word, was directed to the great end of his own aggrandisement. To exalt himself at the expense of every one else, was the end of every endeavour. Stung to the quick by the contemptuous words, and still more contemptuous conduct of the leading men of his own party, he so played his part as utterly to spoil the whole scheme of their policy. He made his own party feel that all they gained in the way of mutilation was what he allowed; and the Ministry he compelled almost to acknowledge, that all that they could save of the bill was still what he allowed. Well might Mr GROTE exclaim, that the People of England were allowed to have only such reforms as Sir ROBERT PEEL was disposed to grant. And no less true was the sarcastic observation of a well known member of the House to me, while this humiliating scene was being enacted:"This is a regular cross between Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Sir ROBERT PEEL, and the motion is jockied." One observation made by the exPremier shewed plainly the folly of the Ministers-and another marked in a curious manner, the character of the speaker and the assembly he was addressing. "This question (said Sir R. PEEL) must now be settled-and I desire to see it settled this year. If it be delayed till another session, so satisfactory an arrangement as is now practicable, will be utterly impossible." This was intended as a significant warning to his own party. Sir R. PEEL saw distinctly that a year's delay would entail the necessity of a far more sweep But ing measure than the present. The observation which was characteristic of Sir ROBERT and his hearers, was as follows: "I think it best for all parties, that I should speak out. On this occasion, I think that by far the most satisfac-. tory course that I can pursue, is to say precisely what I think and feel; I shall not therefore hesitate to speak the entire truth upon this matter." This statement was followed by great cheering from the Ministerial side of the House. (Indeed, it should be remarked that the reception of Sir R. PEEL'S speech by his own party A colder was anything but cordial. welcome could hardly have been given). By this expression we learn that there are times when Sir R. PEEL does not think it right to speak what he thinks and feels: but if this be so, and as he speaks notwithstanding, he speaks what he does not feel, what he does not think. This it seems was an extraordinary occasion; he therefore took an extraordinary course, that is, he determined to speak what he really felt; and he thought fit also to make an apology for so doing. But speaking what one feels and thinks is speaking the truthspeaking what one does not think and feel is to speak the opposite of the truth. This last mode, it appears, is the usual or ordinary one-the deviation from this into truth was uncommon, and required a distinct apology. Who will say that this was not characteristic of the speaker and his audience! Sir ROBERT PEEl was succeeded by Mr HUME. · To me Mr HUME's view of the matter was an erroneous, an unwise one. He was, moreover, inconsistent with himself he at one moment complained of the proceedings of the House of Lords, and in the next recommended a course which not merely sanctioned those proceedings, but also held out an inducement to the Lords to repeat them. Mr HUME also, like the Ministers, confined his view solely to the Municipal Bill, and thought that we gained much by accepting it. Mr GROTE then, in a brief but pointed manner, expressed his great disapprobation of the whole proceeding adopted by the Ministers. His arguments were, however, chiefly directed against the evil tendency of the amendments proposed by the Lords upon the Corporation Bill, while he passed over the mischievous nature and tendency of the power which enabled the Lords to insist on these so-called amendments. His objection did not appear to be so much to the system which necessarily led to such a result, as to the result itself. Mr EWART, who followed Mr Guore, appeared to take the same view of the matter. As my opinion was altogether different from this; and as the observations which I addressed to the House, fully explain my sentiments upon this great matter, I shall now lay them before the reader. reporters, who pretended to give an account of what I said, either could not. or would not understand me,—as any one will immediately perceive, who will take the trouble to compare my own report with that given in the Morning Chronicle of Tuesday the 1st of September. I spoke very nearly as follows: The Mr Speaker, "To an observer, who looked not beneath the surface of things, the present condition of the people of this country' would appear not very flattering to human vanity. He would see a great and an intelligent people, after a long and painful experience, after patient and very careful inquiry, and after mature and anxious consideration, determine, by means of their Representatives, to' fashion a great measure of Reform for some of their most important internal institutions. He would see the Representatives of this great and intelligent People, in obedience to the commands of their constituents, pass a long and painful Session in deliberation upon this great measure of Reform. He would see them, after having exercised all their care and judgment upon the measure; after having weighed, with intense solicitude, every particular portion of this Reform, and framed the whole so as, in' their best judgment, to provide for the well-being of the nation they represented; he would see them, I say, compelled to submit their measure to the considera-: tion of another, and wholly irresponsible, assembly; and he would see this irresponsible body-a body with interests wholly opposed to those of the nation -treat with unmeasured contempt and scorn the wishes of the People, and the measure framed by their responsible Representatives. And he would, lastly, behold this great and this intelligent nation, after being thus checked, thwarted, insulted, trampled ou, scorned, and absolutely derided, bear with patience all this ignominy and degradation. To him, Sir, who should look no further than this, the spectacle I have described would appear little grateful. to human pride. But if he would carry his observation further, he would see real cause for gratulation,-he would see why the People he was contemplating were deemed great and intelligent. |