SUPPLY. (Hansard, 8 February 1842)

§ Mr. Wakley
said, that he took that opportunity of entering his protest—his solemn protest—against the mode in which the Queen's Speech had been framed this year, and for some years past. He would not detain the House long, but he thought that the manner in which the Speech was framed, was unbecoming the character of this House, and was unsuited to the power, dignity, and interest of the country. Every Session of Parliament had brought with it some excuse for adopting the mode of the preceding Session; and, since he had been in the House, excuses had been sufficiently numerous. On one occasion, he remembered it was stated to be highly desirous that the House should be unanimous on a young and beauteous Queen having come to the Throne; that was considered an occasion on which there should be no disunion, no difference of opinion—unanimity was the order of the day. Her Majesty's marriage was another happy occasion, when nothing was so pleasing to the House as unanimity. Then there were the results: first, there was a Princess, and now we had a Prince. The House was to express gratitude and joy on these occasions, which were perfectly in unison, he was well aware, with the feelings of the House and of the country. But on occasions of this sort, when the Commons of England were assembled to promote the public interests, he did think it was fitting, he thought it was becoming the duties 'they had to discharge, that some exposition in the Speech from the Throne should be made to this House which was calculated to attract attention throughout the world, and command for this House the respect and admiration of the enlightened portion of the universe. Instead of that, however, the speech, year after year, had been made up of a tissue, or net-work, of idle generalities. They could not put their finger upon any part of it to which their 194 attention was particularly directed; and, after the house had heard the speech, and adopted an address which was an echo of the speech, no man in the House considered that either he or the Government was pledged to any one thing by the course of proceeding that had been adopted. He did not say, that the existing Government had behaved worse than the preceding Government, but those who constituted the present Government were free enough in their condemnation of the late Government; and yet When they themselves got into power, they adopted the very precedent established before. He wanted to see improvement; he desired to see some change; he desired some alteration which should be useful to the public, and not to go on, year after year, making the Speech from the Throne a thing to be laughed at, instead of a state document to be respected and admired by the community at large. This Session, there had been reasons for reserve. The right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, had said, that he should make an exposition of his views at a certain time, and that time he had named; but he understood, last Session, that the right hon. Gentleman was going to take a careful review of the circumstances of the country, and that the House having been prorogued for five months, on the meeting of Parliament, they should be made acquainted at once with the series of measures which he considered should be introduced for the public good. To-morrow night they were to have the first of these propositions; but he had yet to learn when they were to receive the last. He regarded the Factory Question and the Poor-law Question as two of the most important questions, as two questions which would, in the highest degree, affect the character and stability of the nation; and, in fact, the conduct of the executive Government upon these questions, and upon others which were well known, would determine what must be the issue of the political contests in which of late years they had been engaged. He regarded the aristocracy of England at this moment as on its trial; and he (Mr. Wakley), as a radical reformer, knew full well that when the constitution of England was changed by the enactment of the Reform Bill, it was utterly impossible that those who sought a more extensive measure of reform could complete their case until the other branch of the aristocracy, the branch 195 then out of power, obtained the reins of office, and showed to the public what they would do for the relief of the public grievances. The most wealthy portion, the most influential portion, and, at present, the most respected portion of the aristocracy, were on their trial; they had the power to carry any measure for the public good; they wanted but the will to do so. He knew not whether that will existed. If the will did exist, there was the power in this and the other House of Parliament to accomplish the object. Henceforth there could be no delusion, no deception, no trickery, no intrigue, that would induce the public to be blind with reference to the real merits of the question. The aristocracy had the power, the wealth of England had the power, to pass any measure which might be deemed advisable to enact for the public benefit and advantage. Now, he had hoped that the party with which he had been connected would have been enabled at an early period of this Session to take one step in advance towards the accomplishment of their objects; because, after all, every public man desired to see his principles triumphant, to behold them in the ascendant. It was natural that the human mind should so aspire; but under the present mode of proceeding, as a medical man, he hardly knew what was to be done with the patient. The doctor said he could not prescribe unless he got his fee—he regretted the right hon. Gentleman was not now present —but this was a new mode of practice. It used to be the practice in former times, when a man consulted a physician, to say "This is the system I wish you to pursue;" and it was not the practice to say, "I will attend to your stomach next April, and your extremities afterwards;" but "I will show you the course to be pursued for the constitution generally, for the benefit of the entire system." Now, however, we were to have the remedies in fragments; he did not know when they were to receive the last of them; and therefore it was that on the motion for a committee of supply, in conformity with the recommendations of the Speech, he complained of that Speech as a political anomaly, a vapid, senseless, useless production. He said it was utterly unbecoming of this House, it was unworthy of the Parliament of this kingdom, and it was not calculated to increase in the public mind that respect which it was desirable 196 the people should feel for the Houses of Parliament. He very much regretted that several Members of the other side of the House were not present, or he should certainly have extended his remarks; but he did now enter his protest solemnly and seriously against this mode of proceeding; and whatever might be the pretence, whatever might be put forward another year as a recommendation for unanimity, if the document should be the same as it was now, so full of emptiness, he, for one, would move an amendment, exhibiting, he trusted, a better statement with regard to the public interests; and he most certainly would divide the House on the question, for it was not right that, year after year, the House should be cozened into the adoption of a Speech of this kind, and leave the interests of the country untouched and wholly unsatisfied.

§ Sir G. Clerk
said, though he did not dispute the right of the hon. Member for Finsbury to enter into any subjects connected with any grievances he wished to bring before the notice of the House, yet he thought his criticism on the speech lately delivered from the Throne, and on royal speeches in general, was extremely ill-timed, because the proper moment to have pointed out these generalties of which the hon. Member complained, or the more serious objection of grave omissions in that speech, was last Thursday evening, when the subject was under the consideration of the House. The noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, was perfectly willing that there should be entire unanimity on that occasion, and he was surprised that the hon. Member was so willing to defer to that noble Lord as not to take that opportunity of stating his objections. It was not on all occasions however, that the House was unanimous on speeches delivered from the Throne; and he thought the hon. Member would recollect that in the month of August last there was one exception to the rule. The hon. Member might if he pleased, frame an address to serve as a model which he might recommend for adoption when he became the principal adviser of the Crown. Though the hon. Gentleman had a right to bring the matter before the attention of the House, he should have preferred his doing so when the Ministers of the Crown, who framed the speech, were in their places, and would have been able to justify it. 197 He did not know what was the nature of the speech the hon. Gentleman would have delivered from the Throne; he always understood the chief object of the speech was to state the principal matters upon which advice was required, and to point out to the House those which were the most important. He did not know that any complaint had been made of an omission of the more prominent and important questions likely to engage the attention of Parliament in this Session, in the speech recently delivered. He had heard but one remark as to omission (and the reason of that had been explained by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary)—namely, that no notice had been taken of the bill for a renewal of the Poor-law; the right hon. Baronet stated that that was a question under the consideration of the House in the last Session, and it having been then agreed to continue the measure for a few months only, it was perfectly unnecessary to call the attention of Parliament to that which, as a matter of course, roust come under their notice. The hon. Member had observed that the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury had said, before the prorogation of Parliament, that as soon as Parliament re-assembled lie would introduce measures as to the distress of the country. He thought that his right hon. Friend had redeemed the pledge which he had made to the House; for he had taken the first opportunity of giving notice of his intention of entering into one of those subjects which had excited the last degree of curiosity on the pert of the public, and he had told them that as soon as the forms of the House would permit it; he would avail himself of the opportunity to be afforded him by the Committee of Ways and Means to move a substantive motion on the finances of the country, and at the same time to develope his views of the financial state of the country, and to state what were the intentions of her Majesty's Government. He would ask how it was possible for a Minister of the Crown to have taken an earlier opportunity of intimating the course which he intended to pursue with reference to these questions? The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury, indeed, might say, that his right hon. Friend had left out of consideration the state of the factories and of the New Poor-law. Now he must say that if there 198 was any one thing which more than another had met with the concurrence of the House, it was the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Sir It. Peel) that they should apply themselves to one of these subjects only at a time, and that they should not direct their attention to an immense number of bills at once, a course of proceeding which prevented hon. Members who might be interested in various questions from knowing when it might be the intention of the Government to bring forward particular measures. Under such a system it was impossible to discuss those matters with the attention which they deserved. He again asked whether his right hon. Friend's course was not the best which could be adopted? He would say that, looking to the experience of the former Sessions, the course which his right hon. Friend had chalked out was one which was much more likely to be attended with benefit to the country than if he brought in at the same moment all the important measures which it was necessary to introduce. The hon. Member for Finsbury asked what was the amount of the supply to be granted on this occasion. Now this was a matter of form on the present occasion. It was not necessary in the present stage of the proceedings to do more than move that a supply be granted to her Majesty. He hoped, therefore, that this motion would be agreed to without opposition.

§ Mr. Wakley
said, he should certainly not oppose the motion. He had been in the House every evening—he had heard much that had gratified, and much that had given him pain—for he had never expected to he always pleased, and if he had he would have been much disappointed, and therefore he complained no more of the present Administration than he did of their predecessors, in reference to the Queen's Speech from the Throne. He complained that they had for many years pursued a course which was always injurious, and one which the country was disposed and had reason to deplore. He admitted that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had come forward as quickly as possible with various statements which he had laid before the House; but, at the same time, he must take this opportunity of expressing his regret, that the Poor-law Commission Continuance Bill would not he brought forward until after Easter. He thought that the public would not be satis- 199 fied with this; he thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand) would not be satisfied—his opinions, he presumed, could not have undergone such a mutation by his slight probation in reference to this question. In August last, the bill for the continuance of the Poor-law Commission was passed; that measure would expire in July next, and yet the new measure was not to be passed till after Easter; so that this important bill would have to go through both Houses of Parliament in seven or eight weeks; for most likely the Session was not to continue till the grouse-shooting commenced—till the end of August or the middle of September. It was to be hoped that, as party conflicts were now over, as a good majority was a rare thing, and must produce unanimity, they would have these bills brought in at an earlier period, and that the public would have time to see what those measures were before they became the law of the land; for otherwise it would be better to pass no bills at all than to pass ill-digested measures, he had a right to have expected that the Poor-law Commission Continuance Bill would have been the first of the measures introduced, in order that those who felt a deep interest in the question might be enabled the better to comprehend it; and if they disapproved of its details, they might have an opportunity of opposing them. But it appeared that this bill was to remain in the Home Secretary's office till Easter; so that about the 20th day of April, it would be introduced, and it must be got through before July, when the commission was to terminate. He did not think that this was acting fairly by the people, and on going into supply again, he should strongly express his opinions.

§ Mr. Ferrand
said, that without differing from the hon. Member for Finsbury on the question of the Poor-law, he did not regret that the measure would not be introduced until after Easter, as it would enable the people of this country to express their opinions; and he sincerely trusted the people would lay their constitutional opinions before the country. He would say, that he was thoroughly convinced that the right hon. Baronet would be ultimately satisfied that the Poor-law Commissioners could not so abrogate the constitutional law of the land as they had done, but that they must yield to the force of public opinion.