1860.]

THE BUDGET.

157

to reduce the duty on wine, from a rate nearly reaching 5s. 10d. per gallon, to 3s. per gallon. She engages, besides a present reduction, farther to reduce that duty from the 1st of April 1861, to a scale which has reference to the strength of the wine measured by the quantity of spirit it contains. . . . Sir, I cannot pass from the subject of the French treaty without paying a tribute of respect to two persons at least, who have been the main authors of it. I am bound to bear this witness, at any rate, with regard to the Emperor of the French-that he has given the most unequivocal proofs of sincerity and earnestness in the progress of this great work, which he has prosecuted with a clear-sighted resolution, not, doubtless, for British purposes, but in the spirit of enlightened patriotism, with a view to commercial reforms at home, and to the advantage and happiness of his own people by means of these reforms. With regard to Mr. Cobden, speaking as I do at a time when every angry passion has passed away, I cannot help expressing our obligations to him for the labour he has, at no small personal sacrifice, bestowed upon a measure which he, not the least among the apostles of free trade, believes to be one of the most memorable triumphs free trade has ever achieved. Rare is the privilege of any man who, having fourteen years ago rendered to his country one signal and splendid service, now again, within the same brief span of life, decorated neither by rank nor title, bearing no mark to distinguish him from the people whom he loves, has been permitted again to perform a great and memorable service to his sovereign and to his country.

'The point to which I have now brought the committee in this, to them, I fear, laborious and irksome statement is this: I have asked them to sacrifice 1,190,000l. of the existing revenue in order to effect a relief to the consumer of, I think, 1,737,000l. by giving effect to the provisions of the treaty with France. That treaty would bring about a sensible reform in the customs establishments of the country; at the same time it would not effect a reform which would of itself have any pretensions to a character of completeness, and there are many other duties still remaining on the tariff of a description which we think calls for the attention of parliament, and by the reduction or re

moval of which immense advantage might be conferred upon the nation.'

Mr. Gladstone then proceeded to explain what he termed a 'supplemental measure of customs reform,' containing reductions and abolitions of duties which would entail at first a loss of 910,000l., and give at the same time a relief to the consumer of about 1,040,000%. Of these the most important and the one most likely to encounter opposition-and which did in fact meet with a very determined resistance- -was the abolition of the duty on paper. After going into the supplemental plan at considerable detail, Mr. Gladstone thus proceeded:

'It is now time, sir, that I should bring into one view the alterations which I have stated in detail. In doing so I must endeavour to place clearly before the minds of the committee three separate sums:

'First, there is the entire amount of the remission or relief to the consumers by the adoption of the plans we propose; secondly, the amount of loss to the revenue which they will entail; and thirdly, the amount of compensation which will be derived from the new charges, chiefly upon operations of trade, which we recommend for the adoption of parliament. The customs duties, altered under the stipulations of the treaty with France, will give to the consumer and to the trader relief to the extent of 1,737,000l., and will cause a loss to the revenue of 1,190,000l. By the supplemental customs plan we shall give relief to the consumer and to trade amounting to 1,039,000l., while there will be a loss to the revenue of 910,000. The total relief will thus be 2,771,000l., and the total loss to the revenue 2,100,0007.'

We will not follow Mr. Gladstone farther into the details of his explanation. Suffice it to say that he anticipated a probable net loss of revenue for 1860-61 of 2,108,000l.; a sum which would nearly correspond with the amount of relief which would be obtained by the falling-in of the long annuities.

One great effort was made by the opposition to prevent, at least for a time, the adoption of the treaty. On the motion being made for going into committee on the plan, Mr. Disraeli, having first induced Mr. Du Cane to postpone a motion of which he had given notice, moved that

1860.] LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S REFORM BILL. 159

this house does not think fit to go into committee on the customs act with a view to the reduction or repeal of the duties referred to in the treaty of commerce between her Majesty and the Emperor of the French, until it shall have considered and assented to the engagements in that treaty.' This motion was rejected by a majority of sixtythree. The repeal of the paper-duty, which formed a very important part of the financial plan of the chancellor of the exchequer, and which had, as it was intended to effect, a farther reduction of the cost of newspapers, was opposed by Mr. Miles, but carried against him by a majority of fifty-three.

Lord J. Russell introduced his measure, which was entitled the representation of the people bill, on Thursday, March 1st. The simplicity of this measure presented a very striking contrast to the complexity of that brought forward by the last government. It proposed to introduce a 101. occupation franchise for the counties, and to reduce the borough franchise to 67. The law with regard to rating was to remain unchanged, but the payment of poorrates only, and not as heretofore of assessed taxes also, was to be made a condition of the vote. The bill farther proposed to take one member from twenty-five boroughs which returned two members each; to give to the West Riding two additional seats, to the southern division of Lancashire two, and to each of the following counties or county divisions one; North Lancashire, Middlesex, West Kent, South Devon, South Stafford, North Riding, the port of Lindsay, South Essex, East Somerset, West Norfolk, West Cornwall, and North Essex; it proposed that Kensington and Chelsea should form a borough with two members; that Birkenhead, Stalybridge, and Barnsley should each have one member; and that Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Leeds should each return one additional member. In case of places where there were three members, it proposed that the third member should. represent the minority. Lord John also proposed to give a member to the University of London.

The plan thus announced was received both in the country and in the House of Parliament to which it was submitted in a manner that contrasted most strikingly with the manner in which his reform bill of 1831 was

met. When Lord J. Russell asked leave to bring in the bill the House was respectably filled, but by no means crowded. His exposition of his plan was listened to with a decorous calmness that almost amounted to indifference. His address occupied an hour.

Mr. Cardwell followed, and in proposing an Irish reform bill, spoke just ten minutes: and the Lord Advocate a quarter of an hour in introducing a Scotch reform bill. A few remarks were made, and leave was given to bring in the bill, which was ordered to be read a second time on the 19th of March. The same indifference was shown when the question of the second reading was brought forward. The debate was opened by Mr. Disraeli, who described the bill as a measure of a medieval character, without the inspiration of the feudal system or the genius of the middle ages.' In speaking of the machinery by which the representation of minorities was proposed to be effected, he made the following remarks, to which subsequent events have given a curious significance; The destruction of spirit and energy in public life would, I cannot help thinking, be the consequence, and therefore it is that I, for one, am entirely opposed to the second object which the noble lord seeks to obtain by his scheme of dealing with the redistribution of seats.' The debate on the second reading was long and languid. Such was the indifference which was exhibited with regard to a question that had once convulsed the empire, that on the night when the debate should have been continued the House was counted out. The bill too was ingeniously played off against the budget, and the budget against the bill; so the debate went on at intervals, before and after the Easter vacation, till the 3d of May, when it was read a second time without a division; having been delayed partly by want of earnestness on the part of the supporters of the government, and partly by the prospect which their lukewarmness afforded the opposition of being able to defeat the measure by retarding its progress. Thus the Conservatives, who had at first supposed that the bill could not be successfully resisted, were delighted at the hope now afforded them of being able at once to get rid of a measure which they disliked, and to damage the ministry under whose auspices it had been introduced. These tactics were soon exhibited by the

1860.]

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM QUESTION.

161

number of notices given of amendments in committee, evidently intended to delay the progress of the measure. Lord J. Russell, who, whatever might be the case with regard to some of his colleagues in the ministry, was himself thoroughly in earnest with regard to his bill, endeavoured to conciliate some of the more moderate opponents of the measure by promising large concessions if they would allow it to pass. Meanwhile Mr. Massey, the member for Salford, had given notice that it was his intention to move that the bill should be referred to a select committee. The indifference manifested by the legislature as a whole was shared by many of the cabinet, and certainly by the premier, who was far enough from holding the resolute language regarding it which he had held two years before, when the divorce bill was under the consideration of the house. He was more than indifferent, he was hostile. His feeling regarding it is well illustrated by an anecdote furnished to the author of this work by one of his colleagues. Conversing with a friend who maintained that the representatives who would be sent to a reformed parliament would be men of the same standing and character with those who sat in the present parliament: 'Yes,' replied the premier, 'I daresay the actors will be the same, but they will play to the galleries instead of to the boxes.' Lord Palmerston's feeling on the question was so well understood by the Conservatives, that Lord Derby not obscurely hinted that if Lord Palmerston would remove Lord J. Russell, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Milner Gibson from the cabinet, he would be prepared to support the government; and it is probable that the desperate but unsuccessful efforts made to defeat the paper duty were inspired by the hope of forming a ministry composed of conservative liberals and liberal conservatives, two sections that were certainly much nearer to one another in sentiment and opinion than the men who sat round the councilboard of Lord Palmerston's cabinet. There is no reason, however, to suppose that Lord Palmerston lent an ear to these overtures. Whatever his other faults and failings may have been, he was not the man to throw his colleagues in the ministry overboard, even though on some points of public policy he differed from them widely. But it is equally certain that he regarded the reform bill with an

VOL. III.

M