Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

than a tithe of what it became under the liberal system which Mr. Cobden succeeded in establishing by the enlightened patronage and coöperation of the French emperor. And here we may remark, that, whatever may have been the faults of Napoleon III., on this occasion at least he deserved highly of both France and England, and to some considerable extent redeemed by his conduct the mischief that he wrought on other occasions.

Lord Macaulay has written at the commencement of his great History: I shall cheerfully bear the reproach of having descended below the dignity of history, if I can succeed in placing before the English of the nineteenth century a true picture of the life of their ancestors.' It is on the principle that has received this high sanction that we venture to introduce into this work an event which without such an authority we should hardly have ventured to record. On the 17th of April a contest took place which resounded throughout England. An American boxer named Heenan crossed the seas to show that the new world could produce a pugilist of greater skill and prowess than Tom Sayers, who wore the champion-belt of England. Heenan was a giant, while his competitor was comparatively a man of small stature, but agile, skilful, and watchful. Almost at the commencement of the fight the English champion had one of his arms disabled; but made such good use of the other that Heenan's face was battered into a mass in which it was difficult to discover any trace of the human countenance, and he was for the time completely blinded, while his antagonist was hardly less severely punished. The appearance of the police brought the fight to a premature close. Both claimed the victory, but Sayers kept the champion's belt; and an attempt made to satisfy both of the combatants by presenting a belt to each was only very partially successful. Our principal object in mentioning this fight is to draw attention to the immense interest it excited. Half London endeavoured to be witnesses of it; and though comparatively few of those who attempted to make their way to the scene of action succeeded in reaching it, the number of spectators was enormous. But that which will most astonish our posterity to learn is, that peers, members of parliament, clergymen, men of highly. cultivated minds, men remarkable for artistic taste and

1861.]

THE REFORM QUESTION.

173

artistic power, were amongst the foremost spectators of this disgusting and unlawful exhibition.

Sayers made his public entry into the metropolis through a vast crowd, and amidst most tumultuous applauses. Bell's Life in London boasted that the enthusiasm displayed was greater than would have attended the proclamation of a new king; and Lord Palmerston, in his place in the House of Commons, declared that he saw nothing more demoralising in a boxing-match than in the ascent of a balloon; apparently forgetting that the latter was permitted by the law, while the former was carried on in direct violation of its well-known provisions. Sayers also made a triumphal entry into Liverpool, where his reception was no less enthusiastic.

During the months of June, July, and August, there was a prevalence of severe cold, heavy rains, violent gales, and destructive floods, which gave rise to a fear that there would be a very serious failure of the crops. Fortunately, however, about the end of August a favourable change occurred, and the harvest, though by no means superabundant, was more plentiful than had been anticipated. The peace which had often appeared to be on the point of being established with China was at length concluded; and the only war in which this country was involved when the year closed was one of a not very serious character, which was waged in New Zealand.

Never, perhaps, had the Queen of England been hailed with more ardent demonstrations of loyalty than when she opened the session of 1861, on Thursday the 5th of February. From Buckingham Palace to the Houses of Parliament she was welcomed with one loud, sustained, boisterous cheer. There was nothing in the circumstances of the opening calculated to call forth this enthusiasm; it was a tribute of loyalty to the person of the sovereign. The royal speech was very meagre in its promises of important legislation. On the question of reform it was silent, and the only promise of legislation it held out had reference to some of those law-reforms which had already been under the consideration of parliament. When the address, in reply to the royal speech, was brought forward, Mr. White moved an amendment expressive of dissatisfaction at the omission of all reference to the question of reform;

indicating that the government had resolved to abstain from taking up that question in the course of the present session. Mr. Disraeli, expressing, no doubt, the feeling of his party as well as his own, approved of this omission, and so did Lord John Russell, on the ground that he thought it better to leave the question altogether untouched than to bring in a measure which would only cause disappointment and waste valuable time. His tone on this occasion contrasted strangely with what it had been a few sessions before, when he was overcome with emotion because he was obliged to withdraw his reform bill; and this inconsistency was strongly animadverted on by Mr. Bright, who said that the humiliating position of Lord John in reference to it reminded him of the bankrupt tradesman, who, having carried on business for many years on fictitious credit, at length called his creditors together, glad of an opportunity of getting rid of his obligations. Why, continued Mr. Bright, it is not many years ago since the noble lord shed bitter tears on the very subject which he has this evening treated with indecorous jocularity.' Deserved as this rebuke was, the course determined on by the ministry was perhaps a wise one. It was useless to waste the time of the country by bringing in a bill on the subject unless the cabinet were united in favour of it and determined to carry it through; and it is very doubtful whether, even if they had been united and determined, they would have succeeded with a House of Commons the majority of whose members were anxious to get rid of it; and this was proved by the division on an amendment moved by Mr. White in favour of reform, which was supported by only forty-six, while it was opposed by a hundred and twenty-nine.

But whatever doubts may be entertained with regard to the wisdom of the course pursued by the government in regard to this question, there can scarcely be any difference of opinion with regard to the political morality of their conduct in this respect. Lord Palmerston, after having succeeded in obtaining the support of all sections of the liberal party to enable him to expel the Derby government from office on the ground that the reform bill they had introduced was not sufficiently effective to meet the wants of the nation or the requirements of public opinion, now

1861.]

CHURCH-RATES.

175

threw overboard the question altogether; and his colleagues shared the blame that attached to him for this conduct by continuing to hold office under a minister who had been guilty of such palpable inconsistency.

A question of no small importance was submitted to parliament on the Thursday following the day on which the government repudiated its reform pledges in the manner we have seen. Lord Palmerston then moved for the appointment of a select committee to consider whether, by any alteration in the form of proceeding of the House, the dispatch of public business could be more effectually promoted. Amongst other suggestions that he offered was one, that bills dropped in one session might be taken up in the succeeding session at the stage at which they had been stopped, instead of recommencing entirely. That in this and other ways an enormous waste of time might be prevented, and the public business greatly expedited, seems certain; and though objections were made by Mr. Disraeli, the motion was agreed to.

On the whole, the debates of this session were characterised by more than usual tameness and dulness. There were, however, one or two questions which roused and excited a lively interest; and none more so than a bill for the abolition of church-rates, which was brought forward by Sir John Trelawney. This question had been repeatedly before the House of Commons, and the divisions on it had shown an increasing feeling in favour of the entire abolition of the impost, manifested not only by the majorities which had supported proposals for effecting that object, but also by the steady rejection of every suggested compromise. But now it had been determined, both in and out of the House, to make a great effort to turn the tide. Mr. Disraeli placed himself at the head of the movement. A short time before the commencement of the session he had attended a combined meeting of clergy and laity of the rural deanery of Amersham, Bucks, at which he stated that in his opinion the question of church-rates involved the still more important question of the existence of a national church. This declaration was the signal for a strong agitation to secure the preservation of the church-rate. All members of the church, whatever their political opinions might be, were exhorted to come to the rescue; meetings were

held and petitions were got up throughout the country. Churchmen were recommended to write to their representatives and urge them to vote in favour of the retention of the rate for the support of the fabrics of the churches, or at least not to vote against it. When, therefore, Sir J. Trelawney's bill came on for its second reading, the result of these efforts was apparent. The conservative party mustered very strongly. Mr. Gladstone spoke earnestly in defence of church-rates, amidst cheers from the opposition, which were described at the time as ecstatic.' His colleague, Lord John Russell, also spoke, but less effectively, on the other side of the question; and on the division the second reading of Sir J. Trelawney's bill was carried by 281 to 266, being a great falling-off from the previous majority in its favour. Encouraged by this first gleam of success, the defenders of church-rates in and out of the House redoubled their exertions; and the result was, that when the division took place on the third reading, the numbers for and against the bill were exactly equal, there being 274 on each side. The speaker therefore gave his casting vote against it, on the ground that, as the numbers were so large on both sides at this stage, it was desirable to give the House an opportunity of reconsidering the question.

The interest which generally attaches to a personal question was strongly drawn out by the case of Mr. Turnbull, who had announced that he had found himself obliged to resign a positon he held at the Record-office on account of the persecution carried on against him by the Protestant Alliance, which body had persistently assailed him on account of his decided Roman-Catholic convictions. The matter was brought under the notice of the House of Lords by Lord Normanby, who complained that the government had sacrificed Mr. Turnbull, and moved for a committee to inquire into the cirumstances connected with his dismissal. Lord Shaftesbury opposed the motion, on the ground that Mr. Turnbull had given notice of his intention to take legal proceedings against the secretary of the Protestant Alliance. At the same time he alleged that the objection raised against Mr. Turnbull did not so much rest on the ground of his religious opinions as on that of his decided partisanship. Lord Derby, with his usual

« AnteriorContinuar »