In the commons, Mr. Roebuck brought forward a resolution of confidence in the cabinet on the 24th of June. The speech of the honourable member was constitutional and effective. Lord Palmerston delivered a most powerful exposé of his foreign policy. Sir Robert Peel took much the same views in the commons as Lord Aberdeen did in the lords, and, considering that both these statesmen had by their impolicy allowed the grievances to accumulate which it devolved upon Lord Palmerston to redress, their conduct was equally inequitable and ungenerous in withholding from him their support, not to say opposing him. The speech of Sir Robert Peel was the last he ever delivered, and was remarkable for that circumstance as well as for the ability it displayed; but the principles of foreign policy put forth by the illustrious baronet were such as tended to make the country weak in its foreign relations, and were more calculated to subserve the immediate interests of Lancashire than the permanent interests of that powerful district, or the honour and weal of the empire at large. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cobden were also among the prominent opponents of Lord Palmerston’s policy. The minority was large, the government policy having been supported only by a majority of forty-six.
CONSTITUTIONS FOR THE COLONIES.
On the 8th of February, Lord John Russell made a statement in regard to colonial government. His lordship denounced the imprudence of the Colonial Reform Association, which, by its correspondence with disaffected persons, kept alive discontent wherever it existed, and indirectly promoted it everywhere else. The pith of the noble lord’s statement was, that the colonies were a source of strength in peace and war, contrary to the doctrine propounded by Messrs. Cobden and Bright: that it was the duty of England to preserve her colonial influence, and to extend civilization and freedom wherever her flag was planted; and that in most cases the colonies were in a position, as to population and intelligence, to justify the institution of a constitutional form of government in harmony with that of the parent state. The noble lord’s speech was received with loud cheering, especially on the conservative side of the house, when he announced the opinion of the government that the colonies were sources of commercial and political strength, and ought to be retained. The speech was followed by the proposal of resolutions in harmony with its statements. A very wide diversity of opinion was expressed by the house, Mr. Gladstone animadverting with bad temper upon such portions as did not meet his approbation.
AUSTRALIAN COLONIES’ BILL.
On the 18th of February, in pursuance of these resolutions, Lord John Russell moved “the Australian Colonies’ Bill.” Mr. Roebuck criticised the measure in a tone of severity, in which he was followed by other members, but the second reading was easily carried. On its committal, considerable opposition was offered, in the form of amendments, to which the government could not accede. Mr. Roebuck and Sir William Molesworth led this species of opposition, and neither in a fair or national spirit. The bill was carried, with some slight modifications; but, upon bringing up the report, Sir William Molesworth moved the re-committal of the bill, and was seconded by Mr. Gladstone. The object of Sir William was to initiate a broad and liberal line of policy in colonial affairs on principles which, it appeared to the government, would be adverse to the interests and subversive of the authority of the parent country. Mr. Gladstone was actuated by sheer party opposition. Only forty-two votes were found in favour of the re-committal.
Mr. Gladstone then moved an additional clause, giving the Church of England in the colonies the power of synodical action. The speech of the honourable member was so thoroughly sectarian as to forbid any chance of success, as it awakened prejudices in many directions which a more prudent politician would have endeavoured to allay. The portion of the house usually known as “Young England,” sustained Mr. Gladstone, but the government opposed him, and the house at large went with it.
On the third reading, Mr. Gladstone made another attempt to oppose its progress by moving that it be suspended until the opinion of the colonies could be taken as to its provisions. This motion was plausible, and this time the obstructor spoke plausibly, concealing the temper which really pervaded his opposition. Mr. Roebuck seconded it, although his motives and policy were utterly opposite to those of the mover. The majority was large which rejected the postponement. Other modes of obstruction less prominent were unattended by success.
In the lords the second reading was carried nemine contradicente. Afterwards, Lord Brougham, who co-operated with Mr. Roebuck in the commons, moved that counsel should be heard at the bar against the bill; this motion was defeated. The Bishop of Oxford, who co-operated with Mr. Gladstone in the commons, moved that the bill be referred to a select committee; the motion was refused. The lords accepted the bill with great reluctance, but continued to deal with it in good faith; they amended it in various particulars, to which the commons afterwards consented, and the bill became law.