PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF 1849—OPENING OF THE SESSION.
On the second of February the queen in person opened a new session. Her majesty’s speech referred to most great matters which had occurred in the latter part of 1848, and to such subjects as formed the leading features of the policy of the ministry for 1849. Her majesty especially recommended an alteration in the navigation laws, and she asked for further administrative power to preserve order in Ireland. The general tone and tenor of the speech were congratulatory. Lord Stanley, in the lords, moved an amendment to the usual address, which represented that the state of the country was not such as to call for or justify an address pervaded by a spirit of gratulation. The amendment was rejected, but only by a majority of two. In the commons Mr. Disraeli moved an amendment upon the address, similar to that which Lord Stanley had proposed in the lords, and with no better success. Mr. Disraeli especially contended for keeping up a much larger fleet and army than the government proposed. His arguments were singularly opposed to those which, without any professed change of principle, he used eight years afterwards, against the government of Lord Palmerston, for refusing to reduce the army and navy when serious perils demanded their increase in the judgment of that astute and experienced minister. Mr. Grattan, son of the distinguished Irishman who assisted Irish independence in 1782, proposed an amendment adverse to the ministerial policy for Ireland, but it was rejected in a very decisive manner. The temper of the house, as displayed towards Mr. Grattan, was harsh, invidiously national on all sides, and especially offensive to the popular party in Ireland.
REPEAL OF THE NAVIGATION LAWS.
On the 14th of February Mr. Labouchere renewed the motion for the repeal of the navigation laws, which had been defeated the previous year by the agitation of the shipowners and sailors, particularly those of the Tyne, under the leadership of James Mather, Esq., of South Shields. On the 9th of March the second reading came on, and was met by an amendment proposed by Mr. Hemes, such as is usually offered in order to defeat a bill. This amendment was negatived, in a house of four hundred and seventy-six members, by a majority of fifty-six. The government was much mortified that the minority was so very considerable. In committee Mr. Labouchere modified the bill in a manner which proved the want of proper forethought and decided policy in its preparation. This was the case with most whig measures. On the 23rd of April Mr. Hemes again endeavoured to defeat the bill, securing a very large minority, which further annoyed the ministry, but failed to obstruct the progress of the measure. In the lords the bill was opposed vehemently by Lord Brougham, who denied that it was based upon the principles of free trade. By a majority of ten only the government succeeded in carrying it, and it was generally believed that it would have been lost, only that the government raised a report of intended resignation if the bill had been lost. This decided the opposition of Lord Brougham, who desired to produce such a result, and influence the doubtful among the Conservatives, as they were not prepared at that moment to resume the reins of power. The Bishop of Oxford proposed an amendment intended, by securing the anti-slavery lords, to defeat the measure by a “side wind;” but his object was transparent, and his end was not attained. The bill was carried, and ordered to take effect from the beginning of 1850.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS—MOTION FOR GOVERNMENTAL RELIEF.
The agricultural interest was as discontented as it had been since the repeal of the corn-laws. It was still hoped that the greater part of the public burdens would be shifted to the shoulders of the commercial middle classes; and the party calling itself “the agricultural interest,” but in reality adverse to the prosperity of the farmers and farm-labourers, clamoured for public relief. Mr. Disraeli had now fairly succeeded Lord George Bentinck as the leader, and he on the 5th of March proposed a resolution for a committee of the whole house, to consider such measures as might relieve the owners and occupiers of real property, and establish a more equitable apportionment of the public burdens. Sir Charles Wood, in an awkward and clumsy speech, confuted Mr. Disraeli, no difficult matter even in such a speech, for the honourable leader of “the country party” had collected his statistics carelessly, and used them illogically. His speech was also deficient in the eloquence so striking generally in his elaborate orations. It failed to produce any effect upon any party, even upon his own, and he could only muster the support of seventy members against three hundred and ninety-four. This motion greatly damaged the prestige of Mr. Disraeli: it was thought that he was not competent to lead a great party, and but for the paucity of talent in the conservative ranks, his leadership would have immediately terminated. In the country generally, but especially in the large cities and manufacturing districts, the speech excited a stronger political hostility to Mr. Disraeli than had before prevailed.