There were few other measures of importance as to general government or law introduced by the cabinet, but the subjects introduced by private members were very various, such as—the conduct of government on the question of the extradition of Hungarian refugees from Turkey, brought on by Lord Dudley Stuart; the abandonment of the naval efforts on the coasts of Africa to suppress the slave-trade, introduced by Mr. Hutt, and efficiently opposed by Mr. Buxton; different party questions, connected with outrage in Ireland, on the social condition of that country; bill for a new tribunal instead of the judicial committee of privy council; reform of the universities; alteration of the law of marriage as to degrees of affinity; Sunday labour in the Post-office; amendment of the factory act; debate on the continuation of the annuity of £12,000 per year to the Duke of Cambridge, on occasion of the death of his father, &c. The city of London having elected Baron Rothschild, a Jew, as their representative, and he having refused to take the oaths, “on the faith of a Christian,” a debate ensued of much importance in the commons. Mr. Hume moved that the oath should be administered to Baron Rothschild on the Old Testament. This was obstinately resisted by the tory members, but ultimately carried. The next day, Baron Rothschild was sworn on the Old Testament, but refusing to adopt the words, “on the true faith of a Christian,” he was ordered to withdraw. Sir F. Thesiger moved that a new writ should be issued for the city of London. The attorney-general proposed two resolutions:—1st, that the oath taken by Baron Rothschild was not according to law, and did not entitle him to take his seat; 2nd, pledging the house to a bill in the next session, altering the form of the oath. A debate ensued, which was confused and desultory, and much opposition from both sides of the house was offered to the resolutions, which were, however, eventually carried. The issue was not satisfactory to the city of London, the members of the Jewish persuasion, or the country.
FINANCE.
The financial campaign may be represented as having opened on the 8th of March, when Mr. Cobden made a series of resolutions, pledging the house to retrenchment. The basis of the honourable member’s speech and motion was, that warlike armaments were not necessary, there being no likelihood of any nation going to war with us; and the costly character of such armaments affecting the progress of commerce and civilization, and depriving the people of comfort by an oppressive taxation. The honourable member was of opinion that the differences between states did not require a resort to arms, and that if our government only adopted proper means to effect it, they would find it possible to adjust all disputes with foreign countries by arbitration. The resolutions were rejected by an overwhelming majority.
On the 13th, Mr. Drummond submitted to the house a resolution, recommending economy in the public outlay. This was entertained as a party resolution by the protectionists, who thus suddenly became the professed advocates of economy for the purpose of allowing the agricultural burdens to be relaxed. Being a party motion, it was well supported, and the motion was rejected by a majority of less than fifty members.
Various motions were made by individual members to give a new form to the pressure of taxation, and to adjust in a different way the public burdens. The chancellor of the exchequer, in his financial statement, which is given at the close of this section, anticipated some of these motions, and secured their defeat by his success in inducing the house to acquiesce in his own budget. Others came on before the budget was introduced, but all shared a like fate, as the financial policy of the government received the decided support of the house. Some of the financial motions of the session made by independent members attracted much attention, and produced some impression in the house, being supported by considerable minorities. Thus Lord Duncan moved for the repeal of the window duty. There followed a debate of the most animated character in a thin house, various leading men opposing the government. On a division, the motion was rejected by only a majority of three, there having been eighty to seventy-seven. This was the narrowest escape in the commons which the government experienced in the session.
Mr. Cayley was recognised as the champion of the favourite financial measure with the protectionists, the repeal of the malt duty. He accordingly introduced that subject by motion, which was seconded by Mr. Christopher, another champion “of the agricultural interest.” It was warmly supported by several of the leading Conservatives; but Lord John Russell, Mr. James Wilson, and the chancellor of the exchequer, delivered powerful speeches against it. Mr. Milner Gibson, always intelligent on economical questions, made a very able speech against the repeal of the tax. The motion was lost, a large majority being against it.
On the 15th of March, the chancellor of the exchequer made his financial statement, which was eagerly looked forward to by both sides of the house, and by the country, as it was supposed that a vigorous effort to defeat the ministry on that point would be made. The minister was determined, if possible, to meet the ideas of all parties, and he hit upon the expedient of relieving the agricultural interest by reducing the duty on bricks. Neither the ministers nor their supporters were very sanguine that this would give satisfaction, but it met with very general approval, the trading, tenant, and agricultural interests all felt concerned in the cheapness of this useful material, then heavily taxed; and the result was unanimity in the favourable reception given to the chancellor’s proposal. The following correctly describes the ministerial scheme.