NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE two main subjects for the special meeting of Parliament have been fully brought forward this week : the Irish Coercion Bill has been settled in its earliest stage ; the Bank Charter Act and its vicissitudes have been under nightly discussion.
The provisions of the Irish bill, introduced to the Commons by Sir George Grey on Monday, and then read a first time, may be thus described. The bill is not applicable to the whole country, but only to declared districts. The Lord-Lieutenant is empowered to apply the measure, at his own discretion, to any district, though it be not " disturbed " in the sense of multitudinous or insurrec- tionary disturbance; for murderous crime may prevail without that overt- consent of the whole population. The whole population, of a proclaimed district is forbidden to carry arms, with certain specified exceptions and licences : in practice, under a vigorous execution of the ,bill, these two provisions may amount to a disarming of the lawleisly dis- posed, and a positive arming of those who will stand by the law. On a formal requisition, the whole population of a district is to join in pursuit of a criminal ; a measure for obliging the whole community, as it were, to stand out in muster and be reviewed ; thus affording an opportunity for noting the temper of those who attend the summons and the absence of those who are contuma- cious. Additional constables are to be thrown into the district, which is placed under something like the military possession of the Police. The cost of these proceedings is to be paid by the dis- trict, in a special tax levied at once, at a fixed rate and for a fixed term. The continuance of the Police in the same district beyond the fixed term will make the inhabitants liable for the tax of another term, and of course for a third, or even a fourth, should the conduct of the inhabitants render the presence of the Police necessary for so long. The term mentioned by Sir George Grey might perhaps be shortened ; as it is very desirable to keep before the inhabitants the fact that on their own conduct depends the presence or absence of the Police, the cost or the immunity. The reserve of Police at the disposal of the Lord-Lieutenant is to be increased from 400 to 600.
This last provision has brought some bitter ridicule on the mea- sure, as one to pacify the criminal counties with two hundred more Policemen ! The point of ridicule is obvious enough, but it may be met by more reason than lies on the surface. It should be kept in mind that the six hundred Policemen are only a move- able reserve at the disposal of the Lord-Lieutenant, and that they are to be used in conjunction with the Constabulary distributed about the country ; also, that a large military force is available to the Lord- Lieutenant, and is already engaged in police duties. The two hundred additional men are only a complementary force, re- quired, we assume, on specific calculation. The Executive Go- vernment assert that the means afforded by this bill will enable them to effect their object. It may be confessed that Sir George Grey is chargeable with an impolitic desire to minimize the as- pect of the measure ; impolitic, we say, because its efficacy will be aided by whatever of a formidable nature there may be in its aspect to the people of the lawless districts. It is possible, how- ever, that the machinery may be quite sufficient for dealing with the nefarious tract of country in detail, as the bill proposes to do, on a principle of economizing strength. At all events, its effica- cy will speedily be tested by its success or failure : and it is to be presumed that Ministers will take the full allowance of power which appears to be necessary ; for although they speak of com- ing for more if need be, failure at the outset would be so deroga- tory that it would most likely compel their retirement from office. Either they are able to cope with the violators of the law, or they
are incapable—either the violators of the law will be borne down by the whole force of the powers to grant which Parliament only awaits the asking, or Ministers are not fit to be in office, and must vacate their posts to abler and more resolute men. We are disposed to presume, therefore, that Ministers can hardly have neulected to demand all the powers that are necessary, or that on reconsideration they will do so before the bill is out of Parliament.
Among the objections advanced against the Government mea- sure, two have some plausibility,—that its introduction by the Whigs, who turned out Sir Robert Peel on a similar Coercion Bill in 1846, is an inconsistency ; ani that it is not actually ac- companied by " ameliorating " measures, without which, Mr. John O'Connell threatens to resist it, though he no longer pledges himself to "die on the floor of the House."
As to the inconsistency, the present measure is not similar to the bill of 1846. It is, we think, a great improvement on that bill. We are speaking now, of course, with regard to its capa- bilities alone, not forgetting that its execution will be the true test. It differs from the bill of 1846 in being practicable—positive, not merely privative—exemplary, not universally coercive. Prac- ticable, because, while you cannot disarm a whole nation, as ex- perience of mere Arms Acts has proved, it is quite possible to disarm a district, as you can throw into a limited tract of land a policeman for every inhabitant. Positive, because the evident intention is, not merely to deprive the murderous classes of their deadly toys, but to arm the classes who need or can afford defence. Exemplary, because, in place of inflicting a vexatious humiliation on the people at large, innocent and peaceable as well as guilty and lawless, it limits the coercion to the culpable sections, whose subjugation, if it be effectively enforced, will be a warning lesson to the rest.
But there is another reason why the Whig Ministers may dis- regard this reproach of inconsistency : it is not their introduction of the bill that is wrong now, but it was the spirit of their oppo- sition that was wrong then. Their bill gives the lie to their pro- fessions of resisting all coercion of Ireland : but it was the pro- fession which was hollow—a factious pretext to injure political rivals : their present action is not based on any party motive, on any unreal pretence, but simply their desire to perform a specific duty in the best way they can. Lord John Russell was not pre- pared in 1846 to carry out, as Minister, his own doctrines as an Opposition orator. We too strongly disapproved of his obstructive pretences then, to make much account of them now ; and we will not join in making the misdeeds of the past a reproach to the re- pentant in his amended courses. Nor will Mr. Disraeli's apology serve best to excuse his " in- consistency " in supporting Lord John though he opposed Sir Robert. He says that be joined to defeat the bill of 1846 because it was too tardily prosecuted by the Minister of the day in Par- liament: but everybody knew that Sir Robert Peel's attention and whole energies were absorbed by other tasks, then more ur- gent than even the coercion of Ireland. The Corn-laws have disappeared, and now Irish murder is the urgent subject. The real difference to Mr. Disraeli is, that he had a spite against Sir Robert Peel, which he has not against Lord John Russell.
The objection that coercion is accompanied by no " remedial " measures, is completely answered by Sir Robert Peel, in saying that he will not " parley with assassins," nor wait for permanent measures in dealing with murder. The objection is pure non- sense ; like Mr. John O'Connell's antithesis between the actual crimes of the murderers and the metaphorical "crimes of the landlords,"—as if there were some common measure between the rigorous or even cruel exaction of law to the last letter, and its defiance to the last extremity !
Apart from the District Coercion Bill, indeed, Mimsters are not free from blame for omitting a distinct avowal of their intentions respecting permanent measures. Of course their minds have been made up : then why not say so ? Why, for instance, speak of the Encumbered Estates Bill, postponed from last session, as if it were
still "under consideration." We know that Lord Cotten ham's confused and complicated bill was as full of " difficulties " as a
mere lawyer could have made it: but we know also that it would be quite possible to construct a bill at once simple, effective, and brief. The heads of such a one are before us. It is true that statesmen, who are at the mercy of inferior men, might anticipate one difficulty even in such a bill—it overrides all small refine- ments of title which are so fertile in business to lawyers, and would therefore provoke opposition from the mercenary part of that class. It is not less true that this brief, simple, and effective measure, is dictated by a thorough knowledge of the law, of Ireland, and of the immediate exigency: it is framed by one who thoroughly understands his business and his purpose. But, of course, Ministers can command the
aid of such men, have obtained it, and are prepared also with a complete and effective measure for the relief and transfer
of encumbered estates, as well as other measures duly prepared by them in the recess. They have not deferred the consideration of such measures until the busy and distracting time of Parlia- ment ; or they would ipso facto confess their utter incapacity to perform the duties which they have undertaken. Then why not satisfy the very natural anxiety of the Irish Members and the Irish people to be informed on the subject of these long-promised measures? We do not speak of them as correlative with coercion, because coercive measures and auxiliary measures are intended for totally different classes ; but why not show a little zeal to satisfy the peaceable and orderly—why not allay the curiosity and solici- tude of the suffering? In the question of the Bank Charter Act, Ministers made less rapid progress, precisely because there is less to be done in it. Practically, as a question, it is just where it was when the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent their celebrated epistle to the Bank of England. Parliament was professedly summoned to discuss some actual proceedings conse- quent on the breach of the Bank Charter Act: but there are no actual proceedings on the subject, and instead of legislating, Par- liament has not had much more to do than to listen to an eulo- glum from Sir Charles Wood on that inviolate and venerated statute. Sir Charles Wood, in his long speech on Tuesday, showed that the commercial difficulties were caused by no want of " more notes," nor by undue stringency of the Bank Charter Act; that, on the contrary, to the mass of bullion which that act kept up in the bank, firm as a breakwater, we owed unbroken confidence in the convertibility of notes and the resources of the country : he does not surrender an iota of the statute, though as an act of formal decorum he refers the whole question to Par- liament, by asking for a Committee of inquiry ' as to the causes of the commercial distress, and how far it has been affected by the laws to regulate the issue of notes payable on demand.' It is argued, as by Mr. Baring, that the intended violation of the act is confessedly its condemnation ; that the suc- cess of that expedient affirms the condemnatory sentence; and that in place of indefinite inquiry there ought to be some actual proceeding to prevent the recurrence of such disasters as those of last September. But according to Sir Charles Wood's view, the Treasury letter of the 26th October was no confession against the act, its sufficiency or value. Sir Charles treated the panic-stricken trading community as a mad patient may be treated in a fit of raving, when an expedient may be used to pacify the maniac without any sort of reference to its abstract wisdom ; just as M. la Garde des Sceaux consented, the other day, to join Count Mortier in a remonstrance against imaginary wrongs, not because the remonstrance would have been at all a needful or proper proceeding, but because the perplexed Minister used the readiest expedient to prevent the madman, with an open razor in his hand, from cutting his own throat. For the same purpose, he would quite as readily have assented to destroy a heap of bank-notes, or to burn down a house. In this view, we might as well enter into the merits of that proposed remonstrance as the merits of Sir Charles Wood's proposed violation of the Bank Charter Act. Mr. James Wilson's proposal to limit the inquiry to the operation of the bank-note laws, excluding the causes of commercial distress, was a more practical suggestion ; but in seeming to be more specific and limited, it went beyond Sir Charles Wood's opinion as to the necessity of the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks no change necessary— proposes not the slightest ; even his colleagues do no more than hint at slight modifications. Only, in deference to sheer panic, he has consented to unsettle a statute in which he has undiminished faith ; and having done so, it is an act of decorum to refer the matter to Parliament; just as a naval commander who has de- liberately run his ship aground for some collateral purpose for- mally submits to a court-martial. The Lords, too, have had their say, much like that of the Com- mons, only briefer, less discursive, and more moderate : Lord Lansdowne and Lord Grey are less resolute than Sir Charles Wood in their stand for the Bank Charter Act, Lord Stanley far less rancorous and peremptory than his allies in his assault upon it; and a single night's debate ended in the resolve to appoint a Committee.
Previous page
