THE DEBATE ON THE RAMS.
IT is clear that the momentous question, Is the pear ripe ? is already agitating the minds of the members of Oppo- sition—that Queen Mph has been with them, and that their nightly dreams are of places of twelve hundred a year. They are growing impatient, and it has accordingly been deemed expedient by the loaders of the party to allow them to satisfy themselves by giving the tree a good shake. The result can scarcely have been satisfactory, but great allowance must be made for men who have been seventeen years in opposition, with the exception of two little bites of office just sufficient to whet the appetite without satisfying the stomach. They must, however, wait yet a little longer. It was not without reason that Mr:Disraeli, after his slashing attack on the Foreign Office for not producing the Danish papers, recoiled like Fear from the sound he had himself made, and finally had to beg the House not to suppose that his sarcasms had been intended to produce any practical result. But one can quite under- stand that after such a disappointment as that, after having the fruit snatched from them when a chance tempest seemed ready to blow it into their months, the rank and file would become quite unmanageable, and an early field-day would be a necessary safety-valve for their distempered zeal. To this probably must be attributed the peculiar ferocity which dis- tinguished the Opposition speakers. They were under the influence of a great deal of disappointment and a very mode- rate amount of hope. Even the mildest tempers caught the epidemic. From Mr. Fitzgerald and Lord Robert Cecil we know, of course, what to expect. They are dealers in wild words. But it is a sad spectacle for those who would think well of human nature to see naturally humane dispositions under the influence of angry feelings and the fiercest party spirit. Preternaturally mild and apologetic was the Attorney- General's defence of the Government, yet even the gentle Walpole was cut to the heart, and the cold Cairns gnashed on him with his teeth.
It is observable that, with the exception of Mr. Walpole, the responsible leaders of Opposition carefully abstained from addressing the House, probably because they felt that the subject was one singularly ill-adapted for a party movement. The legality or illegality of the expedients to which certain shipbuilders have resorted, to elude the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act is, every one must admit, a question to be decided by argument in the law courts. The Opposition proposed to settle it summarily by a motion for papers in the House of Commons. And for what were the papers wanted? Because, forsooth, it would enable Sir Hugh Cairns, as it were, to cross-examine Lord Russell as to the exact amount of evi- dence in his possession when he ordered the rams to be detained. The Foreign Secretary being satisfied of their real destina- tion, and that evidence of it was procurable, seizes these vessels, and proceeds to trial in the ordinary way, and it is gravely argued that he ought to be interrogated as to the exact period at which he had secured witnesses capable of proving every step in the case. Perhaps Sir Hughwill tell us how many people who commence Chancery suits are in that blissful state of forwardness with their evidence, and bow far he thinks it would be fair to subject them to the same ordeal. But this was not the greatest outrage. Lord Russell seems to have felt considerable doubt whether he could get the requisite evidence, so he takes great pains to inconvenience the builders as little as possible. For a time he leaves the rams in the builders' hands, and simply takes precautions to prevent their escaping from the Mersey. Alt !" say Mr. Fitzgerald and Co., " that is our grievance. You should have seized at once. You should not have attempted to make any error into which you might fall as little mischievous to us as possible, and, above all, you should not have offered to settle the whole matter by buying the rams." The fact is that the wound of the Opposi- tion is so great because it is so small. It is because the Crown has proceeded so cautiously, and with such a desire to avoid even the appearance of oppression, that they complain scr bitterly, and raise the cuckoo cry that it is unconstitutional to act with common sense. It is not without its significance that of the more'eminent Tory lawyers, Sir Fitzroy Kelly did not even pair, and Mr. Montagu Smith voted for the Govern- ment.
But the House of Commons is still an assembly of poli- ticians. What are the salient features of the question from a statesman's point of view ? First, there can be no doubt about the destination of the rams. Not a speaker, not even Lord Robert Cecil, ventured to assert that they were not intended for the Confederates. We dare say that M. Bravay took care not to tell Mr. Laird where they were going, and we feel sure that Mr. Laird has taken care not to ask. 'Very probably he is not yet convinced that they were not intended for the Pasha of Egypt, for though there are reports to that effect, rumour is often wrong. Certainly also some papers which admitted that they belonged to the Confederate Government were presented to the Richmond Congress ; but then, when it was found how inconvenient was that admission somebody said the papers were a forgery. There is always some peg on which an argu- ment may be hung, but it will, nevertheless, always be hard to persuade a body of practical men that when it is admitted that a prisoner is guilty you ought so to act as that he shall have plenty of time to escape before you arrest him ; that if you have legal evidence to justify your conduct, you ought to be punished because you probably could not have laid your finger on the witnesses when you first moved.
If anything could make partizans reasonable one might suppose it would be the aspect of the Continent. It is im- possible to say how soon we may be forced into a war, and our adversary—say Bavaria, or even Saxe-Weimar—will be able to cover the seas with Yankee privateers converted into German vessels of war by the presence of a German captain with a bundle of German papers in his pocket. Then, when it will be scarcely an exaggeration to say that there is no sea in which a British merchant vessel is not in flames, and freights and insurances are at impossible rates, we shall have to listen to courteous assurances from Mr. Seward that " he has no evidence which justifies him in acting," that "the American Government has no power to overstep the law,"—and, perhaps, he will even contend, as Sir Hugh Cairns contends, that it would be unconstitutional to seize any vessel till his evidence is in such a state that he is ready to go to trial, and that if she escapes meanwhile he cannot help it. Why on earth should the House of Commons, which represents the nation, thus grossly sacrifice the merchants and shipowners of this country to its shipbuilders ? From the moment the member for Huntingdon rose that result was impossible. The most impatient audience perhaps in the world, the House of Commons will always listen to any one who speaks on a subject on which he is specially informed. Mr. Bass is always welcome on malt and hops. Above all, the House likes to be addressed on mercantile questions by the first merchant in the city, and though Mr. Baring is a speaker who is never tiresome, he never speaks with such weight as when he speaks as a trader. True it is that he has no right, as with proud humility .he reminded the House, to affect to represent any interests except his own —but then we may be tolerably certain that shrewd men of business see their interests pretty much as Mr. Baring does. When such a man as this feels bound not merely to vote, but speak against his party, the incriminated Government will have nothing to dread from that attack. Indeed, if party spirit were bitter enough to oust a Ministry in such a case, it would certainly be easier to defeat it on a vote of no confidence — easier and in the future far less embarrass- ing. Looking at the state of parties in the House, at the losses which the Liberals have lately sustained, and the differences of opinion which carry such a fierce Radical as Mr. Roebuck into the Tory lobby, a majority of twenty-five is, perhaps, a triumph for the Government, and from the cheering with which the result was greeted it seems to have been so considered. But if it be a triumph for the Government, it is scarcely so for the House of Commons. The way in which the question was handled by the minority was most discredit- able. A matter on which the solo anxiety of every man ought to be that the law should be carried out, and right be done, is made a handle for bitter taunts, passionate appeals to prejudice, and a party division. And so large a number of members is found to participate in this unscrupulousness that the motion is only rejected in a full House by twenty-five. The result, we repeat, is not a creditable one to the House of Commons.
Previous page
