Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

4 per cent. annuities, 1826, were to receive the half-year's dividend due the 10th of October, 1834; and one quarter of a year's dividend was to be payable upon the new 3 per cent. annuities on the 5th of January, 1835:-Books were to be opened at the Bank of England, from the 8th of May to the 28th of May, both days inclusive, for receiving notices of dissent:-Persons out of the United Kingdom during the whole of that period might express their dissent at any time before the 6th of July, 1834:-and persons in any other quarter of the world, except Europe, might express such dissent at any time before the 1st of March,

1835.

The dissentients were to a greater amount than had been anticipated. The number of persons who had expressed their dissent before the 9th of June was stated, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to be 969; and they held 4,600,000l. of 4 per cent stock. In order to provide the funds necessary for paying them off, a resolution was passed on the 9th of June, that the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, should make the necessary payments to the dissentients, out of the monies, stocks, or exchequer bills held by them under the savings' banks act; and that the dissented stock should, from the 10th of October following, be deemed to be converted into an equal amount of new 3 per cents, which were to be vested in the commissioners, and placed in their names in the bank books to the account, entitled, "the funds for the banks of savings." A similar clause was introduced into the act, 4 and 5 William 4. c. 31, for carrying the scheme into effect.

On the 10th of October, the reduction was completed without difficulty.

On the 18th of February, Mr. D. W. Harvey moved for a select committee to inquire into the grounds on which the several pensions on the civil list had been granted. Lord Althorp, without undertaking to defend all the grants, met the motion by an amendment, reciting the reductions which had been made in the amount of the charge for pensions, and the various acts which regulated them, and declaring it to be the duty of ministers to guard against the misappropriation of the fund. The motion was negatived by 190 to 180. On the 5th of May, Mr. Harvey renewed the subject, by moving that an address might be presented to the crown, praying an inquiry into the pension list. Mr. Strutt moved, as an amendment, for the appointment of a select committee to ascertain the nature and extent of any abuses which might have occurred in the granting of pensions. The original motion was negatived by 390 to 148; and the amendment, by .311 to 230.

Among the financial affairs of the year, a motion ought to be noticed, which Sir W. Ingleby brought forward on the 22nd of February, for taking into consideration the propriety of the total or partial repeal of the duty on malt. To compensate for the 4,845,000l., which would thus be lost to the revenue, he proposed taxes on gambling houses and titles, and additional taxes on gin and foreign wines. The motion was opposed by the ministers, and was rejected by 271 against 170.

CHAP. VIII.

Bill for the Removal of the Civil Disabilities of the Jews-passed by the Commons-rejected by the Lords-Rejection of a proposition for Repealing or Modifying the Laws by which Members of the House of Commons, accepting certain offices, vacate their Seats-Motion for Shortening the Duration of Parliament-Motion for Amending those Clauses of the Reform Bill, which require the Payment of Rent and Taxes as a previous qualification for the exercise of the Elective Franchise-Bill to prevent Bribery in Elections; the Amendments of the Lords rejected by the Commons-Bills to Disfranchise Warwick, Hertford, Stafford, Liverpool, and Carrickfergus ; none of them pass the Lords-Lord Warwick's Statement-Issuing of writs to Hertford, Carrickfergus and Warwick, suspended-Money supplied by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the purposes of the Colchester Election-Lord Brougham's Case of Breach of Privilege -Breach of Privilege occasioned by the Musical Festival.

R. Robert Grant again brought British rights. He moved that the

civil disabilities of the Jews. The second reading was opposed by Mr. C. Bruce, on the ground that the bill would unchristianise the legislature of the country. It was a dangerous proposition to declare it lawful to admit to high official situations a class of men, however respectable they might otherwise be, who were not only indifferent, but bitterly hostile, to Christianity. The motion rested entirely on the assumption, that religious and civil rights may with propriety and safety be separated; while the history of the world, and especially that of France towards the close of the last century, proved that religion was inseparable from good government in every well-ordered community. Besides, the Jews were aliens, divested of those national feelings and uninfluenced by those natural prepossessions, which alone could entitle them, as British subjects, to participate in the enjoyment of

six months.

a

Mr. Petre supported the measure on the general principle, that religious opinions should not be allowed to operate as a civil disqualification against any class of men. It was improper and impolitic to interfere with the mode of worship or religion of any man, so long as he was loyal to his sovereign, and obedient to the laws of the land. He regarded civil disquaifications on such grounds, as so many instances of odious and unjustifiable intolerance. Mr. Poulter supported the bill, because he thought that no religious belief, consistent with the peace of civil society, should be a ground of exclusion from civil privileges. The instances of France, Holland, and the United States, shewed that Jews might be good subjects, and that they were perfectly competent to discharge the civil and military functions of a state. The constitutional prin

ciple recognised in the fact of Christianity being part of the law of the land was said to prohibit the removal of any disabilities, real or imaginary, under which the Jews laboured. Such a principle, however, had never been established as the law of England, and any allusion to it was to be found only in the casual remarks that might have dropped from the bench in cases of libels on Christianity. It had been too long the object of certain parties in this country to connect with the civil government, not a profession of the general principles of Christianity, but an adherence to the principles of the established church —an object which would be unattainable, so long as all shades of religious opinion should continue to be found among the members of a legislature.

large majorities, and was read a third time, and passed, on the 11th of June, by 50 votes against a minority of 14.

In the house of Lords, the marquis of Westminster took charge of the Bill. The second reading having been moved on the 23rd of June, the earl of Malmesbury moved the amendment, that it should be read a second time that day six months, on the same grounds which had been stated by its opponents in the lower house.

He could not allow individuals, who deemed the author of the Christian religion an impostor, to become an integral part, and much less a paramount body in the legislature of this country. Jews could not on principle attend to parliamentary duties on any Saturday, and this might induce them to attempt interference with the Christian Sabbath. If Jews were once allowed to sit in parliament he did not see why Mahometans should be prevented from legislating for the people of England.

Sir Daniel K. Sandford, on the other hand, supported the proposition for rejecting the bill, which he denounced as the offspring of a false liberality. This was a Christian legislature, giving a Christian sanction to the laws which they enacted, and bound to abstain from every measure which might remove that sanction or desecrate those laws. Christian charity could not possibly demand the concession of political privileges; and he objected to the admission amongst them of those who despised the sacred volume upon which the members of that house pledged their most solemn obligations. Mr. Buckingham thought that Jews were entitled to all civil franchises, including the right of sitting in that house, so long as they were not exempted from taxation and other civil liabilities. The amendment was lost. The bill was carried through committee by ligion, it would be worse than

The earl of Winchilsea, who seconded the amendment, said that the Jews in this country were, as a body, perfectly indifferent to the question which was agitated by a certain party, who found, in the present situation of the Hebrew people, a stumbling block in the way of their attack upon the Christian religion. He considered the relative numbers of the Jews resident in this country a matter of little consequence; for the paucity of their numbers was no good reason for withholding from them any right to which they could establish an equitable claim. But as our laws were founded on, and interwoven with, the Christian re

absurd to introduce into parliament a body of men who scoffed at the divine power whom their lordships daily invoked to watch over and guide their councils. He would willingly relieve the Jews from any practical grievance; but he could not consent so far to unchristianise the legislature as to admit to its deliberations a class of men, by whom, he feared, many members of both houses of parliament allowed themselves to be incidentally duped.

The archbishop of Canterbury expressed his surprise that such a measure, instead of being allowed to remain at rest for a few years, had been brought forward so soon after a decision had been given against it last Session. However futile other objections to the measure might appear, one, founded on religious scruples, was, in his mind, insuperable. It would be a degradation to a Christian parliament to allow Jews to legis late for a Christian community. There was not the slightest resemblance between the case before the house, and that of the Catholics; who, whatever might be their peculiar opinions on points of doctrine, did not, at least, disbelieve the divine essence of the founder of our religion. The character of the country depended, in a great measure, on the character of the legislature; and, at the risk of being considered bigotted and superstitious, he believed that as the blessings of providence had descended upon this country in consequence of the establishment of the Christian religion, so they might be withdrawn from us, if we attempted to shake its foundations. No danger could be averted, no object could be gained by concession. He had reason to know, that

not a few very influential Jews themselves entertained conscientious objections to the present measure. They should be left to the quiet prosecution of their avocations under the mild and beneficent laws of this country.

The earl of Bexley and the earl of Radnor were friendly to the bill. The latter held that England would not be less a Christian country, were Jews admitted to her legislature. If, as was sometimes argued, it had been ordained by Heaven that the Jews were to remain for a certain time a standing miracle, no regulation of policy, which might be adopted, could possibly interfere with the arrangements of providence. Though Christianity was the law of the land, he denied that all our legislative enactments were founded on Christianity. An act of this kind would be no more inconsistent with Christian principles than any regulations affecting the currency, or the regulations of our army and navy. On a division, the bill was lost by a majority of 92; 130 peers voting against it, and only 38 in its favour.

The increasing unpopularity of ministers had exposed them to great inconveniences from the statutory rule of the constitution, which requires, that any member of the house of Commons, who accepts certain offices under the crown shall vacate his seat, and take his chance of being re-elected. In more instances than one the candidate thus stamped with the approbation of the government, had not been re-elected; even the attorney-general, having by his promotion, vacated his seat for Dudley, had not been able to secure his re-election, and was not in parliament. Before making

changes in the occupancy of offices, it was necessary to consider not only the fitness of persons, but the chances of their being reelected. It probably was this state of matters which induced Sir Robert Heron, on the 1st of May, to move for leave to bring in a bill to óbviate the necessity of members vacating their seats on their accepting certain offices under the crown; but he stated that he did so without the knowledge or concurrence of any member of his majesty's government. The practice, as it at present stood, had been settled by statute. He argued that, prior to the passing of the reform bill, it was necessary that the people should have it in their power to exercise an influence over the crown in the appointment of its ministers; but now that the system of representation had been so much improved, he thought such a check not only unnecessary, but embarrassing to the free exercise of the royal prerogative. The decisions of the people were frequently rash; and the object of his measure was to guard against the evils of any temporary excitement on the part of the constituencies. No man, who accepted office, could now be certain of being returned to parliament, unless the general policy of the ministry happened to be in accordance with the sentiments of the people. At no period of the history of England did ministers represent popular places. On the contrary, from the days of Sir Robert Walpole down to those of Lord Lansdowne, they had represented constituencies which were nearly, or altogether, under the control of individuals. Even Mr. Canning resigned the representa

6th Anne, and 41st George III.

tion of Liverpool, as soon as he became an efficient minister. However useful, therefore, the rule might have formerly been, it was obvious, from the changes which had lately taken place in the constitution, that under such a system, the administration must be the slave of every violent and sudden change in the sentiments of the people. There remained now but very few boroughs in which individuals possessed such a preponderating influence as materially to assist a candidate. The officers he would include in the bill were, the commissioners for executing the office of lord high treasurer, the commissioners for exercising the office of lord high admiral, the chancellor of the exchequer, the secretary of state for foreign affairs, the secretary at war, the president of the India board, the president of the board of trade, the secretary to the admiralty, the secretary to the India board, the master general of the ordnance, the chief clerk of the ordnance, the storekeeper general, the paymaster general, the attorney general, the solicitor general, the chief secretary to the lord lieutenant of Ireland, the attorney general for Ireland, the solicitor general for Ireland, the lord advocate of Scotland, the military secretary to the commander in chief. He would except the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and the Hundred of East Hendred; and he did not intend that the bill should come into operation, till after the next general election.

Mr. E. L. Bulwer was dissatisfied with the proposition submitted to the house, because it failed to remove the worst dangers of the present system. The principle of the constitution was, not that the

« ElőzőTovább »