TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE FIRST FACTION-FIGHT OF THE SESSION : " IN FOR ANOTHER YEAR."
Tun fifth week of the session is over : what has been done ?
The first four weeks were characterized by listless idleness. In the course of that time the House of Commons held fifteen meet- ings, averaging somewhat less than six hours each, counting from four o'clock, the nominal hour of meeting. The Committee sittings have scarcely begun yet. Pairing has been frequent, and the unan- nounced absence of Members still more frequent. The slovenly manse: in which the routine business of the House is conducted renders it impossible for even Members to say what progress has been made in the indispensable work of the session. One or two Committees have been named, one or two bills have been in- troduced, one or two have been allowed to be introduced. Four weeks have been wasted by our Representatives since their meet- ing., much in the same way that boys waste the first hour or two on returning to school after the holydays, listlessly fingering their dictionaries, maps, and copy-books, unable to muster courage to resume their tasks. Our overgrown schoolboys of the Legislature have evidently no very hard taskmaster over them : the public is but an indifferent pedagogue. On Monday last the scene changed. " Oh, then and there was mustering in hot haste." For four successive evenings early and crowded sittings were protracted till far in the night. Speeches of immeasurable length were delivered. Members of both parties gathered within the House to cheer their friends and hoot their opponents ; and out of the House—in the daytime—looked as suspicious as blacklegs calculating the long- odds. The most unenlightened might see that the business of the session had begun at last. The business of the session ?- true, the business of the partisans within the House : but the bu- siness of the people, has it begun yet ? or when begun, will it re- ceive the same attention ?
The most important difference between the rival Registry Bills for Ireland consists in this—that the bill of the Opposition (Lord STANLEY'S) evades a definition of what constitutes a qualifica- tion for the franchise ; and the Ministerial bill (Lord Moarn.rn's) contains a clause conferring the franchise upon all who are rated to the assessment for the poor at five pounds or upwards. Keeping in view that the main difficulty in the Irish Registration Courts has arisen out of the real or alleged vagueness of the definition of the franchise-qualification in the original Reform Bill, omission of any attempt at a better definition in Lord STANLEY'S measure is fatal to its character as a statesmanlike piece of legislation. His party, with the exception of Sir Wuxi/tat FOLLETT, evaded this sore point ; and Sir WILLIAM'S apology, though ingenious, is a des- perate attempt to make the best of a bad case. He maintained that to a sound lawyer there was no difficulty in the original defi- nition ; that it was the same as had been adopted in the Reform Bills for England and Scotland; that the fault lay not in the Irish Reform Bill, but in the conduct of the Irish Judges; and that dif- ficulty ought to be solved by judicial not legislative interference. It is no matter where or how the difficulty originated—it exists ; and Lord STANLEY having introduced a bill to remove evils arising out of it, was bound to strike at their root. In virtue of its con- taining a definition of the franchise-qualification, the Ministerial bill is in its outline and general character a more practical, states- manlike measure than that of Lord STANLEY, and ought therefore to be preferably adopted by the House as the groundwork of its legislation on this question.
Turning our attention, then, to the Ministerial bill, and more especially to this feature in it, we find the authors of the measure laying claim to support on two grounds,—first, that it does contain a specific definition of the franchise; second, that the qualification adopted by increasing the number of properly-qualified voters in Ireland, will approximate the electoral body in that island more closely to an identity of sentiment and opinion with the whole com- munity. The first of these attributes appears on the face of the bill; the correctness of the second can only be shown by a statis- tical illustration of the manner in which the bill will work. After diligently perusing the speeches on both sides, and the documents laid on the table of the House of Commons, we are, we confess, still unprovided with sufficient statistical information to enable us to give a probable guess whether the five-pound rated qualification will really and permanently add to the numbers of the constituency or not. And in reference to this point there is one passage in the speech of Mr. MACALLAY which is particularly deserving of atten- tion— " He neither could consider that the term of fourteen years, nor the sum of five pounds, were any thing more than questions of detail. (Cries of " Oh, oh !" from Members on the Opposition benches.) However extraordinary it might appear, yet he did conceive that any gentleman, even though he might think five pounds were too small, and that it might be carried further—to six, seven, eight, or ten pounds—yet still, acting according to the manner of Parliament, he would be justified in voting for the second reading of the bill."
This is equivocation. Ministers adopt a five-pound quali- fication in their bill, knowing that to propose one so low will tickle the ears of Radical constituencies. And they induce Members to vote for them, by saying that five pounds is not a principle. True, but what is the principle upon which they take their stand ? That they do not explicitly declare ; and therefore one Member votes for the second reading saying to himself that a precisely-de- fined franchise is wha$ be means to support, and another Member votes for the second reading saying to himself that a more nume- rous constituency is the principle he supports. Ministers take credit for liberality in proposing a five-pound franchise, and for a majority of the House in carrying the second reading of their bill, knowing that they cannot carry their five-pound franchise, and contented to drop it, provided their nominal majority furnish them with a pretext for remaining in office.
Judging by the non-production of evidence to show what would be the working of a five-pound franchise in Ireland, and by this rather indiscreet revelation of the Windsor letter-writer, (who seems to be of that calibre of plotters who cannot refrain from telling the whole world the very clever equivocations hy'which they catch votes,) we do not believe that Ministers seriously intend or wish to carry their five-pound franchise for Ireland. The bill is to be committed pro fowna on Monday, and after that it will probably be pushed with little vigour. There will be a long-drawn fight in Committee, varied by days consumed in money-votes and other routine busi- ness, to say nothing of those which will be engrossed by sturdy Liberals, who having important motions of their own to make, will give way to no requests of Ministers, however urgent, to allow them to hurry their Irish measure through the House. Lord STANLEY may keep his bill hanging over their heads; but when the session has been spun out to decorous length, the House will be prorogued, leaving the wonderfully liberal suffrage for Ireland still a thing in posse, and the whole business of the country at sixes and sevens.
The business of the people has not begun yet. This anxious week has been, after all, nothing more than the first faction-fight of the session. The speeches during the debate on the Irish Registration Bill do not seem to indicate any nearer approximation of parties. They consist chiefly of the staple material—" you, who ' now say this, formerly said that." But they were little more than ebullitions of personal spleen. SHELL pecked at GRAHAM, and PEEL at RUSSELL, after this fashion ; but these were single combats. There was nothing of the hurling of a personality by a whole party against a whole party, which used in 1830 and 1835 to be effected by the cheers en masse which accompanied a•homethrust. The prevailing tone on both sides was more guarded than formerly. The Ministerialists seemed to have an awkward consciousness that they hold their seats on and around the Treasury-bench on suffer- ance, and the Opposition that a premature storming of that citadel might be dangerous. Meanwhile, the Whigs are in high feather. While the debate lasted they were anxious and gloomy, but now they are smirking and shaking bands at every corner- " We are in for another year." When that year is at an end, per- haps the chapter of accidents may again befriend them : why damp the joy of the present by gloomy conjectures as to the future ? For one day the dismal word " dissolution " has not been pro- nounced.
But the people's business has yet to begin : when will it begin ?
Previous page
