On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Feb. 14,1652.] THE LEADER. 143

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    History Of Parliament. The New Eefoem Bi...

    however , which the eloquence of the hon , member for 5 nhSwswas unable to effect , the near approach of a f Xn had suddenly accomplished ( loud cries of ?? r £ 5 om the Opposition benches ) , and at the H us oTof the last sessfon of Parliament the Hoiisc C ° fd ? vwa 3 surprised to learn , not only that the noble i ° <\ but that- every member of his Cabinet , had suddenly Sme converted upbn the question . ( Hear , hear . ) He ? Sr Baillie ) could not give a better illustration of the IpVfttion of long parliaments than by citing this . example that the very bill which the House was now discussing hid been delayed by the Septennial Act for ^ a period of four vears ; and he believed the noble , lord was much Mistaken if he thought that any measure would give satisfaction which did not provide for the shortening of ; Parliaments . ( Hear , hear . ) " . , ,., .

    Then why retain the smaU . nomination boroughs ? exclaimed Mr . Baillie , maliciousiy citing Marlborpugh , and Malton , and Richmond , and Ripon , and Tavistock , and Came , all of which are in the hands of Ministers . These ' and many others were a disgrace to our representative system . He believed that there was no mode of dealing fairly with the question but by extinguishing these boroughs altogether . But to whom should their of

    privileges be transferred ? That was a question great interest to Scotland and Ireland , neither of which parts of the kingdom were fairly represented . As to combining boroughs , that would , lead only to stUl further proprietary domination . He asked the English members to consider the condition in which they would be placed hereafter , if the Prime Minister were always to have a Reform Bill ready whenever it might , suit the object of bis government to have a little popular clamour . ( Loud cries of Hear , hear . )

    " What would their position be if the question of ^ a new Reform Bill was made dependent upon whether a minister was able to maintain a majority in this house ? He called upou them , therefore , to take the noble lord at his word , andhave a new Reform . ¦ Bill indeed—not such a one as this , which would only whet theappetite of the country for further changes , and would only excite fresh agitation in the country—but a real arid substantial measure , which would give a more equal and better distribution of political power to every portion of the United Kingdom . ( Hear , hear . ) Depend upon it , to this point we must come at last ( chcers >; and , if this progressive system of reform was to be carried on , upon the heads of those who had not hesitated to exercise their influence in order to promote

    and renew such constantly recurring agitation must rest the responsibility of the consequences which must ensue . ( Cheers . )" Following up Mr . Baillie ' s appeal for Scotland , Mr . Roche put in a word for Ireland , ns not being sufficiently represented , and asking for the combination of Irish boroughs . Mr . Newdegate and Sir Joshua Walmsley condemned the Bill for very different reasons . Mr . Trelawny and Mr . Anstey approved , with reservations ; and Lord Harry Vane approved entirely . Sir John Tyrem , thought that the noble lord ' s statement was a " milk-and-water affair , " and that the projected measure ought to be called " a Bill for the continuance of her Majesty ' s present Ministers in office . "

    Lord . John Rttssem . here stated in reply , first to Mr Newdegate and afterwards to Mr . Disraeli , that h « would introduce tha bill on Wednesday or Thursday , and take the second reading on Friday fortnight- This did not " appear to bo quite satisfactory" to Mr . Disraeli , who nppealed for longer time , and declared that it was most unusual for a minister to move for leave to bring in an important measure like this Reform Bill , not having the said bill ready to introduce They ought to have a month to consider the measure . Referring to the bill ho congratulated the reformers on the " content" with which they had received it , but for his

    own part ho thought that the essentiul conditions of n Reform Bill hnd not been observed . Replying to Mr . Wright lie said that the towns had a preponderance in the representation , and that the difference in population and property between Thetford and Manchester did not prove that Manchester should have more mombors , but that Thotford Bhould have none at all . As a sot oft" to the Thotford and Manchester argument , he instanced tho county of Chester , whero Stockport and Macdosfield , having a population of 82 , 000 , return four members , while the whole county , having a population of 134 , 000 ( oxclusive of tho population of the towns )

    only returned two members . Ho should certainly oppose tho bill if he thought any attempt would be "judo to give a preponderance to any party in tho Mouse ; hut that was a point which could not bo settled until tho bill was before thorn : As to tho measure itself , it 86 omod one of questionable propriety . Ho coula not say it appeared adequate ; ho could not say jt was statesmanlike ; " ho could not say that it soomed Vi , to *) 0 » permanent settlement of tho question . « o had always boon in favour of on "industrial suffrago , " wit ho doubted whethor a 5 J . franchise would act in that way .

    "I am not to be persuaded that there was no measure better fitted for this purpose , no arrangement more apposite send more calculated to complete this end , than merely lowering the rating of the rent on which the suffrage depends . " Demanding further time tor considering the measure , asking the Hduse to consider first , whether a measure like thaLt was required at all ; next , whether that was the measure required , he pointed out that there were other questions—as taxation , colonial and legal reform , which ought to be fairly and attentively considered , as well as parliamentary reform . Sir

    George Grey accurately described Mr . Disraeli ' s speech , when he said , that it would puzzle any one to tell exactly whether the honourable gentlemen supported or opposed the bill ; but if he had objections , let them he manfully brought forward . He warned the House , not to suffer the bill to be defeated by a proposal for delay . Sir Benjamin Ham , sharply replied to Mr . Disraeli , that the noble lord had followed the precedent of 1831 , in asking for leave a few days before he brought in the bill . The measure was not quite satisfactory , but that was no reason why the radicals should oppose it . No ; they meant to take it , and get as much more as possible . Mr . Baillie had named

    nomination boroughs , whose representatives sat oil the ministerial side ; but where did honourable gentlemen sit who represented such " miserable little" boroughs as Wilton , Christchurch , Hythe , Buckingham , Helstone , Huntingdon , and Stamford ? Altogether , he was thankful to the noble lord for the bill . Lord DxrpiiEY Stuart made a similar speech , a little more strongly spiced in expression , and more antagonistic in spirit . He justly rated Lord John Russell for talking of extending the franchise to the people as a reward , and for maintaining the small boroughs . After a few ; words from Mr . M . Q'Connell and Captain Harris , leave was given to bring in the bill ? and the House adiourned at a quarter past ten o ' clock .

    Lord John Rttssem . presented the Parliamentary Representation Bill , amidst cheers from the Ministerial side of the House , on Thursday night , when it was read a first time , and ordered to be read a second time on the 27 th inst .

    History Of Parliament. The New Eefoem Bi...

    TENANT-EIGHT . Mr . Sharman Crawford moved for leave to bring in a " ¦ Bill to provide for the better securing and regulating the custom of tenant-right as practised in the province of Ulster , and to secure compensation to improving tenants , who may not claim under the said custom , and to limit the power of eviction in certain cases , " on Tuesday . Ho stated the mode upon which he proposed to adjust compensations as follows : —

    " Where the tenant claimed compensation , each party should appoint arbitrators with power to appoint a third arbitrator ; and if a decision should not be made by the arbitrators , the question was to be referred to the assistantbarrister in all cases under 100 / ., and in all cases over 100 / . to the judge of assize . In the bill introduced by Lord Stanley it was proposed that a government commissioner should be appointed for the purpose of deciding those questions , and it would be for the consideration of the House whether an appointment of that sort should be made , or whether the decision should be left in the hands of the assistant-barrister or judge of assize . ( Hear , hear . )"

    His object was to give that security for outlay m improvementsto tho tenantwhich he did notnow possess . All the evils of Ireland uprung from the very imperfect relations of landlord and . tenant . Sir George Grey wpuld not oppose tho introduction of the bill , but he could no $ promise the support of the government . Repeated discussions had proved the " great difficulty , " he would not say the " impossibility" of dealing by Act of Parliamen t with tho subject . Respecting tho present deplorable state of certain Northern districts , Sir George Grey made the following incidental statement of tho views and intentions of ministers , in substance the same as that given by tho Marquis of Lansdowne .

    " The honournblo gentleman had alluded to the outrages that were committed in parts of Ireland to which he referred , and tho combination existing there ; he ( Sir George Grey ) believed that combination arose , not from want of compensation to the tenant for improvement effected upon the land , but that it was a combination to effect , by force , terror , and intimidation , a reduction of rents ( hear , hem ) , and crime and outrage with that view must be mot by tho Btrict arm of tho law . ( Hear , hear . ) The government

    did not ask fox increased powers to meet' it ; they were ¦ anxious to endeavour by the ordinary existing law to oppose an effectual check to the progress of this system of terror ancTintimidation , but whatever the menus might bo , when tho law was violated by crime and outrage it was the duty of tho government to put nn end by tho strong arm of tho law to a system of that kind . ( Honr , hear . } But if the government were bound to enforce tho Jaw against offenders , they wcro also bound to chum froni the occupiers of land , that co-operation that could only bo effectually given by their combined action with tho

    government . Let rents be fairly assessed between landlords , and tenants , and levied with justice and firmness , and then he believed a remedy would be applied to those evils . ( Hear , hear . ) The announcement of the Home Secretary took the edge off the debate . Nevertheless the Irish members spoke a great deal in support of the motion . Mr . He ^ ryGrAttAN referred all the evils of Ireland to absenteeism , and proposed that the estates of the'Mar ? quis of Lansdowne , the Dukes of Buckingham and

    Devonshire , of Lords Fitzwilliam and Palmerston should be sold by auction ! Mr . Httme rushed into the debate uttering wholesale disapproval of the measure , and calling it " communism . " Mr . Roche and Mr . Moore both supported the motion ; the former rating the government for promising and not carrying a landlord and tenant bill themselves ; and the latter showing how the landlords took improved land the instant it was improved * and drove out the tenant by imposing a high rent and giving no compensation . What all admitted to be a moral , Mr . Crawford ' s bill would make a legal

    wrong . Sib John Yottng rose to combat these positions , and insisted that the proposed remedy was a delusion , and that it would neither benefit landlord nor tenant . Take the case of an unsuccessful man who had paid a large incoming fine for " improvements , " When he left , he would get his money again , and possibly go to America with it ; while the tenant-who paid the fine got nothing for his money , which would otherwise have been available for the purchase of stock . Mr . Sadmer answered this by putting the case of a tenant whose landlord was obliged to sell in the Encumbered Estates Court . The new landlord walked in , and coolly took possession of all improvements . Was not that wrong ?

    " The practice existing in Ireland was very different from that existing in this . In the former country it is the tenant occupier who risks his money and means , the expense , anxiety , and inconvenience of making permanent improvements . This state of things creates in the breasts of the people a passion for the land they have so improved , and creates the notion that he is really a partner in the proprietorship of the land . But the tenant has no security that he may not be turned out to-morrow , and lose all the benefit of his exertions . It is , therefore , very desirable that some alteration should take place which would leave unchecked the spirit , enterprise , and industry of the tenant occupier who has the spirit to make those improvements which his landlord is unwilling to undertake . "

    Mr . Osborne characterised the bill as a measure of spoliation , and denounced the Tenant Right Leaguers as dishonest in the main ; yet he was favourable to some alteration in the present law . He also , like Mr . Hume , mixed up tenant right with " communistic theories , " maxims of M . Proudhon , and other strong phrases intended as censure . Lord John Russexi . made a statement of what course the Government had followed on this question . When they came into office , they found bills on the subject , which were taken and submitted to a committee . From these bills one was

    framed , which " rather came under the designation of a sensible bill ; " but it did not at all follow , because a bill was a sensible bill , that it would bo acceptable to the people of Ireland . ( Laughter . ) On the contrary , it would have been made a text-book for agitators ; and as ho found that it did not meet the views of tho tenant-right leaguers , it was withdrawn . Mr . Bright had sent him a sot of propositions , which he had read , and forwarded to Ireland . They were considered by the Irish Privy Council , and returned , ns not adapted to the evil . Thereupon , Lord John Russell came to tho conclusion last yeftr , that in tho then temper of Ireland , any bill thaj / ho might introduce would only furnish a source for fresh agitation , and consequently ho abstained altogether . Tho question was ono of

    " infinite difficulty , " and ho was not prepared to legislate upon it . Ho did not oppose tho introduction of the bill—for what would bo said out of doors if ho should ? Mr . Kuoair followed Lord John Russell , and exposed tho tactics of ministers on this measure over since they had been in office . Lord John Russell had promised a bill to amend tho laws relating to landlord and tenant . Ho had opposed the enaction of an Arms Act , under Sir Robert Peel ' s ministry , in 1846 , on the ground that nn equitable adjustment of this landquestion had not been tried as a remedy for agrarian outrage . Ho had since laid on tho table , year b y year , bills on this subject , all of which he hud coquetted and toyed with , and not carried , and now ho roftisod to legislate at all . Tho present government had paltorod with tho question in every sonse .

    " When out of oflicc , they had excited tho people of Ireland to most cxtravngant expectations , and in oillco , when it would no longer serve tho purposes of their administration , they allowed the question , which they themselves hnd created , to drop to the ground , and now assailed those who , upon their invitation , flrat became advocates of the measure . " ( Hear , hear , and cheers . )

    Feb. 14,1652.] The Leader. 143

    Feb . 14 , 1652 . ] THE LEADER . 143

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), Feb. 14, 1852, page 3, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_14021852/page/3/