Bill for the Removal of Jewish Disabilities.—The impossibility of a Jew sitting in parliament, in consequence of the form of oath containing the expression “upon the true faith of a Christian,” gave much umbrage to the Israelitish community, and the general public sympathised. The election of Baron Rothschild, along with the premier, in the representation of the city of London, drew attention to this subject with revived force. The government brought in a bill to enable Jews to sit in parliament, the house, in their case, dispensing with the form of oath to which they were opposed. Mr. Augustus Stafford proposed that the bill be read a second time that day six months. He was very ably and eloquently answered by Mr. Monckton Milnes. After adjournments and fierce discussions the government, as usual, triumphed by a large majority. In the House of Lords it was especially opposed by the Earl of Ellenborough. The most effective speech delivered by the opposition was that made by the Bishop of Oxford; but it was marked by a party acrimony so intense as to weaken much the force of its eloquence.
He accused the premier of having gained his return for the city by the bribery to which rich Jews resorted on his behalf. This he found it necessary to apologise for and withdraw. The bill was lost by a considerable majority against it.
Irish Encumbered Estates Bill.—Very early in the session the lord-chancellor introduced a measure to facilitate the sale of encumbered estates in Ireland. This bill was resisted chiefly by those it was designed most to benefit; it was, however, ultimately carried, and under its administration a very large portion of landed property in Ireland changed hands. The operation of the measure was beneficial, but was not sufficiently sweeping in its powers, and failed to produce all the good that a better concerted scheme might have worked out.
Measures for Repressing Insurrection in Ireland.—On other pages a minute account of Irish suffering and sedition has been given, and references were then made to the proceedings in parliament which had reference to these transactions. On the 21st of July, Lord John Russell, amidst the cheers of the house, gave notice of motion to enable the lord-lieutenant of Ireland to arrest and detain persons suspected of treasonable designs against her majesty’s throne and government. The same night the Earl of Glengall brought under the notice of the peers the existence of treasonable clubs, the manufacture of pikes and the importation of fire-arms, the treasonable correspondence with France and America, the denunciations made by the rebel press and rebel orators, and the atrocious anti-social doctrines propounded—among others, the right and duty of exterminating the eight thousand Protestant landlords. Lord Brougham startled the house by reading a private letter, written to a friend by Daniel O’Connell a short time before his death, in which he declared it necessary for Ireland that coercion should be employed, and that the suspension of the habeas corpus was, in his opinion, the best and least oppressive way of putting down Irish disturbance. The publicly expressed opinions of the agitator had been so very adverse to those conveyed in this private communication, that its perusal caused a great sensation in the house. As O’Connell’s writing was well known to Lord Brougham, and most of the noble lords who sat around him, there could be neither misapprehension nor imposition. The government measures were opposed by some Irish members, but their opposition was deficient in dignity and good sense. Mr. Fergus O’Connor so nearly approached treason in one of his speeches, that the premier was obliged to interfere formally, as did Sir Robert Peel on another occasion. Mr. Sharman Crawford, with excellent temper, but substantially with absurdity and impracticability, rivalled Mr. O’Connor in the earnestness of his opposition. The measure of the ministry was carried, much to the satisfaction of the country.
Bill for the better Security of the Crown and Government—This measure was introduced by Sir George Grey, for the double purpose of quelling Irish insurrection, and repressing the disturbances caused by the English Chartists. One of the clauses of the bill was for the suppression of “open and unadvised speakings.”
This gave offence to the liberal party, and there was a general suspicion throughout the country that under the disguise of putting down chartism, the government was solicitous to check the increase of public meetings for reform in church and state, which became very numerous, especially in the north of England, and most especially in Lancashire. In those parts of the country, the disapprobation of the clause was very strong, and occasion was taken at public meetings, even of a religious nature, to denounce it. Mr. Hume, Mr. G. Thompson, and Mr. Fox argued well against the “gagging clause” as it was called, and eloquently pointed out the consequences which, upon a forced construction, might ensue. Mr. M. J. O’Connell declared that some such measure was necessary to the peace of Ireland, and he would give the government his support. This circumstance, taken in connection with the private letter read by Lord Brougham in the House of Lords, left a strong impression among liberal members of the commons, and of the community, that the O’Connells had been insincere in their professions to Ireland. The press, both in the Old and Young Ireland interest, censured Mr. M. J. O’Connell, in terms of bitter severity, and the cry was raised that the younger O’Connells were more of place-hunters than patriots. After some warm personal altercations, the bill passed.
Mr. Samuel Martin, afterwards Sir Samuel Martin, and a baron of the exchequer, much increased his personal and legal reputation by opposing “the gagging clause.” This, however, he did in a temper and mode which secured the respect of the government as well as of the country.
Alien removal Bill.—The vast number of foreigners in England, and especially in London, was at that time a source of uneasiness to the well-disposed, and eventually became so to the government. These immigrants so conducted themselves as to expose the country to the danger of being embroiled with foreign powers; and they expressed openly their sympathy with English Chartists and Irish Confederates. A bill was brought into the House of Lords by the Marquis of Lansdowne, giving power to the home secretary to remove foreigners whose presence might be an inconvenience. Their removal was to be determined by their conduct in England, not in the place from which they had come. This bill was introduced in the middle of April. It readily passed the lords. On the first of May it was introduced to the commons by the home secretary, and after an opposition of great force, from Sir William Molesworth and others, was carried.
Motion for Extension of the Franchise, Triennial Parliaments, and Apportionment of Members to Population.—A very extensive and influential agitation for these objects, headed by Mr. Hume, was maintained throughout the country, by persons much opposed to the socialist doctrines and riotous practices of the Chartists. On the 21st of June, Mr. Hume moved a resolution declaring the opinion of the house to be in favour of these measures, It was seconded by Dr. Bowring, afterwards so famous in connection with the government of Hong-Kong. Mr. Henry Drummond partly supported the views of those gentlemen, but nevertheless exposed, in very able and eloquent terms, the inconsistencies of Mr. Hume’s speech, who seemed to have no clear and definite notions of the way in which his own theory should be carried out. Lord John Russell opposed the resolution in a speech as anti-reform in its character as if it had been made by Sir Charles Wetherell. Mr. Fergus O’Connor bitterly opposed Mr. Hume’s motion, and afterwards voted for it. Mr. Urquhart and Mr. Anstey offered to it an opposition foolish and factious. Mr. Cobden supported Mr. Hume’s resolution, but not upon any political principle, but exclusively in reference to his own economical views, which he considered it would, if carried, promote. Mr. Cobden was ably answered and exposed by Mr. Sidney Herbert. The resolution found only eighty-four supporters in a house of four hundred and thirty-five members.
Discussions on Foreign Policy.—The conduct of the government in sending Lord Minto to Italy, as a sort of quasi-envoy, and its interference in the quarrel between Sicily and Naples, led to long discussions, in which Lord Stanley and Mr. Disraeli laboured with unusual energy to gain a party victory over the government. The reply of Lord Palmerston was, however, so luminous and convincing that it dispelled all doubt of the wisdom of the policy which he had pursued. His lordship resumed his seat amidst cheers from both sides of the house—the government was triumphant. Nevertheless there existed throughout the country a strong antipathy to the mission of Lord Minto; nor did the public feel quite sure that the management of the Sicilian affair was discreet—and it certainly was not successful.