PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF THE YEAR.
The distressed condition of the poor of the British Isles, the disarrangement of commercial affairs, the famine in Ireland, and the crime prevailing in that country, rendered it necessary to open the session of 1847 earlier than usual. Accordingly, on the 19th of January her majesty, in person, read the speech from the throne. It referred to all these subjects in a manner appropriate to the occasion. The marriage of the Infanta of Spain to the Duke of Montpensier, was simply noticed as having given rise to a correspondence between her majesty’s government and that of France. When her majesty came to the passage referring to the Montpensier marriage, the house was intensely still, and every eye watched the royal countenance to see if any indication of her private feelings would be given. This portion of the royal speech was read with a peculiar expression of displeasure by her majesty, never before witnessed in her countenance on a public occasion. In private, the royal lady did not hesitate to denounce the conduct of Louis Philippe as utterly faithless, and she was accustomed to refer to him as incapable of acting with the honour of a private gentleman, for he had given his hand to her while making a solemn promise that this marriage should not take place. This state of feeling on the part of her majesty was well known to the King of the French, who, while he regretted it, took credit to himself for having frustrated her majesty’s own intention to have the infanta married to a Cobourg. Her reference to the extinction of the free city and state of Cracow was made in terms of great severity, as a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna, and her intention of laying before the house copies of her protests to the three states was expressed. Allusion was made to the action of the combined squadrons of France and England in the River Plate. Her majesty read the passages which described the condition of Ireland with a subdued tone, as if mingled shame and sympathy struggled within her breast.
The debates which ensued upon the address were neither remarkable for judgment nor eloquence. Lord Stanley, in the lords, was, as usual, apt, ready, and ingenious, but dealt in platitudes unworthy of his reputation. Lord Brougham was bitter against his former friends, allowing his personal spleen to interfere with his patriotism and the public welfare. He did not succeed either in embarrassing the ministry or enlightening the lords. The debates in the commons were regarded with more interest by the country than those in the lords. Mr. Disraeli’s sarcasm that the house of lords had become “the high court of registry,” had truth in it. The address gave rise to much animated discussion, envenomed by party spirit. Smith O’Brien laid the grievances of Ireland before the house in terms more patriotic and honest than wise. Lord George Bentinck taunted the government with the failure of their remedial measures for Ireland, political and material, and his taunts were keenly felt. The cabinet was not equal to the crisis.
On the 21st of January Lord John Russell moved that the house should go into committee on the corn importation acts; and he announced his intention to follow that up by a motion on the navigation laws, by which they should be suspended until the 6th of November. He accordingly first proposed the suspension of the duties on the importation of foreign corn until September. Bills were brought in, and passed both houses with the utmost rapidity, the standing orders being waived. On the 25th they received the royal assent. On that day ministers communicated their plans for the melioration of Irish suffering. So overwhelming was the wretchedness of Ireland, that the amount of relief for January was calculated by Lord John Russell at three-quarters of a million sterling. Colonel Jones, who was at the head of the board of works in Ireland, with very little advantage to his country, and no moral advantage to himself, had, in a letter dated the 19th, stated the difficulties which were admitted to stand in the way of employing labourers. The people were so reduced by famine that task-work could not be imposed upon them, and Colonel Jones was therefore of opinion that to give food was, on the whole, cheaper than to employ such labour. Lord John Russell made very effective use of this letter in support of the views which he presented to the house. He stated that the money advanced for public works should not be exacted in full, but half remitted upon the payment of each instalment. The next proposal of the premier was for a grant of £50,000 in advance, to enable proprietors to procure seed for the land. His lordship animadverted in very indignant terms upon the conduct of men of mark in Ireland, who, instead of paying their rates for the relief of the poor, invited them to make demands with which no government could comply. He instanced the union of Castlebar, in the county of Mayo, where there was room in the workhouse for six hundred persons, and only one hundred and twenty were admitted, while the Marquis of Sligo and Mr. Moore addressed a letter to the people of the district, calling upon them to meet at Castlebar and “demand their rights.” Lord John dwelt eloquently upon the want of self-reliance and co-operation displayed in Ireland, and affirmed the utter impossibility of government or any human power interposing so as to prevent the continuance of many of the painful consequences of harvest failure already experienced. His lordship’s counsels and cautions were badly received, both by the Irish members and by the people of Ireland, and notwithstanding his liberal measures of relief, his speech added to his unpopularity in that country. The Irish were very unwilling to adopt the philosophy of Mr. Disraeli, “Whether, under any circumstances, it should be the office of a government to supply the people with food is a very interesting question. When famine prevails there will always be a numerous party who will maintain the affirmative. Death and decimation are stern facts which seem to bring conviction. Yet it is the duty of a minister to consider whether, if the government were to interfere, the death might not be increased, and the rate of mortality aggravated.”
Another measure for the relief of Ireland was proposed by ministers to enable government to make advances from the treasury on the security of the rates, and excited a debate, when its committal was moved on the 8th of February. This debate was remarkable as giving an opportunity to the great agitator for his last parliamentary effort. He declared that two millions of the Irish population must perish if the parliament did not come forward with adequate relief; while he proclaimed their measures totally inadequate, and showing either ignorance of the state of the country, or want of sympathy for its sufferings. He affirmed that in the ruin which had fallen on the land, any attempt to levy rates would be abortive, and drive the people to desperation. The honourable and venerable member depicted the condition of the people with truthful eloquence, and he was no less correct in showing the shortcomings of the government schemes of relief. His speech was delivered in a faint voice, and with every symptom of physical exhaustion. He was heard with the most profound attention and respect. His predictions, unfortunately, came to pass. His dissolution was hastened by his inability to procure an assent to his views in the house, and by the consequences which he so clearly foresaw.
Lord John’s measures for the relief of Ireland having been carried, he on the 1st of March proposed a permanent measure to compel the land to support the pauper poor. On the 12th of March his lordship made an elaborate defence of his scheme, which was warmly debated, Mr. Roebuck acrimoniously attacking Irish landlords, and Mr. Smith O’Brien insisting that the blame of the condition of Ireland rested upon the government. Government, however, was not left alone to initiate measures of Irish relief. Lord George Bentinck, on the 4th of February, brought forward a motion for the reproductive employment of Irish labour by the construction of railways in Ireland. This motion his lordship advocated eloquently, and it has been agreed that his oration was the best he ever delivered. His plan was in all respects sound considered in reference to the principles of political economy, and more useful, practically, than any which the government had devised; yet the ministerial side of the house treated it with ridicule. An advance of sixteen millions sterling to promote railways in Ireland they scouted as preposterous; but no effective answer was given to the facts and figures of Lord George, who was singularly careful on this occasion in his preparation of both. The bill was brought in without any opposition from the government, but it was foreseen that the influence of the cabinet would be used for its defeat. Accordingly, on the 12th of February, on the proposal of the second reading, government opposition was offered: the debate, after an adjournment, was resumed on the 15th, and continued through that day and the next, when the bill was thrown out by an overwhelming majority.
On the 22nd of February the chancellor of the exchequer made his financial statement, and made a demand for an eight millions loan on behalf of Ireland, noticed elsewhere. He gave an appalling picture of the state of the English poor, showing that, in Manchester alone, nearly thirty thousand workmen and labourers were out of employment, while the prospect of the augmentation of the unemployed there was disheartening. The grant for Ireland was especially opposed by two members of the house, who, while they sympathised beyond most other members with the political agitators of Ireland, looked upon her material condition without an equally warm interest, and regarded her rather from an English than an imperial point of view; these members were Mr. Hume and Mr. Roebuck. Government was triumphant in those measures, so far as the support of a majority in the commons was concerned. It was, however, felt that neither the men nor the measures were adequate to the exigencies of party, any more than to the magnitude of the occasion. Lord John Russell was vacillating and time-serving, although with a show of resolution in resisting and defeating measures which afterwards met, at all events, his qualified approval. This was most singularly exemplified in connection with Lord George Bentinck’s measure for an advance of money to create railways in Ireland. On the 26th of April the house was taken by surprise when the chancellor of the exchequer proposed a loan to certain Irish railways. The proposed sum was £620,000, half a million of which was to be advanced to one particular railway—“the great South Western.” This gave great offence to many. Mr. Hume led off the opposition, Mr. Roebuck followed, of course, with fiery impetuosity; Sir Robert Peel disapproved of it, and the whole Peel party echoed his objections. Lord George Bentinck exulted in the homage paid to his counsels by the tardy, trimming, half measure, or less than half measure of her majesty’s advisers. Notwithstanding so rigorous an opposition from so many quarters, government was so well backed by the Irish members and the ministerial hacks who represented British constituencies, that they carried this and several other measures to which a similar opposition was offered. The remark that the railway scheme of Sir Charles Wood was the fag-end of Lord George Bentinck’s measure, was received with loud cheers by the house, and was repeated much “out of doors.” During these debates the grossest ignorance of Ireland, her people, resources, and financial relation to Great Britain, was evinced by English representatives. Mr. Hume and Mr. Roebuck were very conspicuous in this respect. Mr. Disraeli had the folly to say that the railway scheme of Lord George Bentinck would be beneficial to Ireland, in a political, moral, and social point of view, irrespective of material advantage, because the Roman Catholic and Protestant populations would be brought to work together as “navvies!” Mr. Disraeli did not know that not one man, probably, out of five thousand in that class of labourers in Ireland was a Protestant, and that if working together in the same employments would be sufficient to reconcile them, the reconciliation must have been long ago effected—over the whole of Ulster, at least. The differences between Irish Protestants and Roman Catholics were founded in principle, cherished deeply and warmly by them respectively, and were not, and are not, to be healed by the political or economical quackery of Mr. Disraeli, or politicians who, like him, share with neither party in the earnestness of their opinions. The Irish Protestant and the Irish Roman Catholic believe that the political ascendancy of their respective creeds is necessary to the development of their power and usefulness, and strive, therefore, with jealous eagerness and honesty for that ascendancy. Whatever concessions on this ground the Protestants might be induced to make, the spirit of Irish Romanism is ultramontane in every province and in every social grade of the people.
The Earl of Lincoln and Lord Monteagle united in bringing under the notice of the commons and lords the subject of Irish emigration, and each of these noble persons occupied the time and attention of parliament with an impracticable measure. The general want of parliamentary tact and practical sagacity evinced by the members of both houses at this juncture was discouraging to those who regarded parliament as the hope of the nation.
Parliament was much occupied with Irish and financial questions during the session; several other matters, however, occupied earnest attention. Mr. Fielden, member for Oldham, brought before the commons a measure for shortening the hours of labour of women and children, and young persons in factories. His agitation of this subject derived additional interest from the fact that he himself had been a poor factory boy, and had, to use his own expression, always “stood by his order.” His measure proposed the limitation of labour to twelve hours a clay, allowing two hours out of the twelve for meals, and he would apply this rule to all young persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen. On Saturday, however, he would limit the hours to eight, making a total of sixty-three hours in the week until the 1st of May, 1848, after which the total hours of labour for each young person in the week should be fifty-eight. These restrictions he would apply to all females, of whatever age, engaged in factory labour. The working-classes were strongly in favour of Mr. Fielden’s motion. Mr. Cobden had said the previous year that, if the matter was postponed for twelve months, the feelings of the working-classes would change; but that eloquent and philanthropic man very often proved himself a bad prophet, and never more signally than in this instance. The desire of the working-classes for some such law had greatly increased since the time Mr. Cobden declared that it would abate. On the second reading of the bill a fierce opposition was offered, based upon principles of political economy. Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Hume, Mr. Trelawney, Sir Charles Wood, Mr. Mark Philips, and Mr. Bright, were the chief opponents of the measure. Mr. Bright very ably animadverted upon the vacillation of Lord John Russell upon this subject, and the mischief inflicted upon the interests in question by the noble lord’s indecision.
Lord John Russell avowed his support of the principle of the measure, because parliament had already given its sanction to that principle, but he objected to the details. The bill was very ably supported by Mr. Ricardo and Mr. Duncombe. Several speeches were made on its behalf, which were calculated to damage it, and to awaken the alarm of the manufacturing interest; these were made by Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Borthwick, Sir Robert Inglis, and Mr. Newdegate. Mr. Roebuck offered an able and formidable opposition to it. Mr. Brotherton made a feeling appeal to the house, assuring it that the working-classes were borne down by the oppressive number of their hours of toil; that it was impossible for them to accomplish a better arrangement by voluntary agreement; that he himself had worked in a factory, and felt the oppressiveness of the burden, resolving, if ever he could, to contribute to the emancipation of the workmen from so great an evil, and declaring that he still retained in their original freshness the feelings he then cherished. This noble appeal was received by the house with warm demonstrations of applause. Sir James Graham endeavoured to remove the effect which it produced, setting out with the paltry sophism that Mr. Brotherton had risen by the long-hour system, ergo, he should not oppose it! The fair implication of Mr. Brotherton’s speech was that he had risen in spite of the long-hour system, and if Sir James could have regarded the arguments of the honourable member for Salford with common candour, he must have drawn that inference. The bill was carried through both houses with rapid success, after undergoing certain modifications. Lord Brougham took occasion to launch his thunders against his former friends in the ministry for their varying opinions, forgetful that from him this reproach, however well founded, came with the worst possible grace.
On the 22nd of March Mr. Fox Maule moved the second reading of a bill for shortening the period of service in the army. The bill was opposed by Sir Howard Douglas, who did not on this occasion give his last mistaken opinion on military affairs. Colonel Sibthorp, the opponent of every improvement in the law, was an appropriate companion for Sir Howard Douglas in this opposition. Colonel Reid also denounced the measure. It received support from Major Layard, who exposed the injustice of the Duke of Wellington’s Horse-guards’ administration by instances of the gross political partiality displayed in the promotion of officers. Sir De Lacy Evans, the friend of the soldier, the supporter of every liberal opinion and just law, supported Mr. Maule. Mr. Sidney Herbert afforded a qualified support. The measure passed the commons, and received an eloquent and powerful advocacy in the lords from the Duke of Wellington. This mainly contributed to the success of the bill, for the lords were disposed to throw it out. The Earl of Lucan proposed a plan calculated to reconcile parties; but the Duke of Wellington was so strenuously in favour of the plan of the government, that it was carried, but by a very small majority.