HL Deb 10 February 1854 vol 130 cc392-402
EARL GREY

In putting the question of which I have given notice to the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government, I have only a very few words to say in explanation of my reason for doing so. Your Lordships are aware, from the Votes of the other House of Parliament, that notice has been given that a Bill on the subject of Parliamentary Reform is to be proposed in that House on Monday next on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. This notice was given at the beginning of the Session; but since it was so given, I have heard from persons of the most various political opinions, and of the most conflicting views as to the propriety of any further reform or not—from gentlemen of all parties I have heard such a unanimous concurrence in the opinion which I ventured to express to your Lordships in the debate on the Address, that it was inexpedient to bring forward the question of reform, before the measures for the national defence which may be required by the probable outbreak of war were completed, that I really felt confident that Her Majesty's Government would postpone that notice unless they should be able to assure us that the probability of a disturbance of peace was at an end, and that they could rely upon tranquillity being preserved. Your Lordships are aware, from the answer given both to-night and on a former evening by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that he has not been able to hold out to us any such hopes of the preservation of peace. On the contrary, the noble Earl has told us this evening that the temper of the Emperor of Russia makes the probability of war stronger than ever. Under these circumstances, I am anxious to know whether Her Majesty's Government really mean to submit to Parliament a measure for the alteration of the constitution of the House of Commons before those measures which are essential for the defence of the country have been considered and disposed of. I cannot help remarking to your Lordships that there is naturally a great anxiety on the subject in the public mind. Every man is most anxious to know when Her Majesty's Government propose to submit to the House the Army and Navy Estimates, and when other measures will be brought forward, and especially that measure which has been announced for extending the Militia Law, which is now only applicable to England, to the other divisions of the United Kingdom. It is earnestly desired by all parties that those measures should be made known to the country with the least possible delay, and should be considered, and the opinion of Parliament taken upon them. There is a very great objection to the discussion of those subjects being interfered with by another question of the peculiar nature of that which I have mentioned. I beg to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the delay which may be thereby caused, may not be merely the delay of a single night or of the several nights that may be occupied by an adjourned debate upon the intended Reform Bill—it may be a delay of a much more serious character; for I presume that such a measure as one of Parliamentary reform is not to be launched by Government without a full intention of proceeding with the consideration of it without unnecessary delay. Looking, however, to the very conflicting views and to the great variety of opinions on this subject which now prevail in the country, it is possible that Her Majesty's Government may fail in proposing a measure that will meet with the ap- probation of Parliament or of the country. Are we, then, in the midst of our preparations for war, to have a dissolution of Parliament, or a resignation of the present Ministry? My Lords, I am not one of those who profess an unbounded confidence in Her Majesty's present advisers, but at the same time I own that I should look forward to their resignation at the present moment with deep alarm and apprehension. At no time is a change of Government effected without some considerable disturbance of the regularity of the movements of the Executive Government. It is quite true that when the members of one Administration resign, they continue in the performance of the functions of their various offices until their successors are appointed, and that there is no actual interruption of the most necessary functions of the Executive Government; but I know also that from the very day on which the resignation of Her Majesty's advisers has been accepted, until their successors have been actually installed, more than one-half of the real power of the Government is destroyed. It is utterly impossible that when the reins of power are about to pass from the hands of one set of men to those of another—when it is uncertain whether the measures brought forward by them may not be reversed by those who succeed them—it is quite impossible, under such circumstances, that the Government can be carried on with proper vigour and effect. These changes—even in times of profound peace and tranquillity—are not unattended with a certain degree of inconvenience; but at the moment of preparation for war, or of the actual breaking out of hostilities, when the various measures required for the purpose are in actual progress, I am sure every man must feel that a change of Ministers must be attended with the greatest inconvenience if not danger. We cannot afford to have a Ministerial crisis needlessly brought on, or even risked, at a time when the attention of the country ought to be entirely occupied in providing for its defence, and for the vigorous conduct of the hostilities with which it is threatened. It is upon this ground that I am most anxious to know whether, even at this last moment, Her Majesty's Government may be inclined to postpone bringing on that subject to which I have adverted. I quite agree with them that it is a subject which ought to be taken into consideration as early as possible. After what has taken place within the last two or three years on this subject, there is no advantage to be gained by attempting to get rid of question. Whatever the difficulty or inconvenience may be, the question must be considered; but that consideration ought not to take precedence of the consideration of the more pressing measures which the present state of the country demands. I beg to ask the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that a measure of Reform is to be submitted to the other House of Parliament before the introduction of the Navy and Army Estimates?

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

In answer to the question of the noble Earl, I have to inform him that it is the intention of my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) on Monday next to bring forward a measure of Parliamentary reform in the House of Commons. If I correctly understand the noble Earl, the objection which he takes to this course of proceeding rests upon the supposition of its interfering with those preparations—those military and naval preparations—which the present state of the country not only justifies but demands. Now, my Lords, it will not practically have any such effect. The Navy Estimates were laid, I believe, upon the table of the House of Commons yesterday; but it was impossible, from the nature of those Estimates, to appoint an earlier day for their consideration than Friday next. On Friday next, therefore, the Navy Estimates will be taken into consideration; but the measure of Parliamentary reform, although proposed on Monday next, will not be proceeded with until after the consideration of the Estimates, both Army and Navy. Therefore the public business will not suffer in consequence of the introduction of that measure. Her Majesty's Government have felt that their character was at stake in the production of that measure, and that if it had been possible for us to postpone it, we should have met with just reprobation on the part of Parliament and of the public for taking that course. Noble Lords seem to think that we are actually at war; but I must say that not only is this not the case, but I, for one, deny (although it has been asserted in this House by various noble Lords) that war is inevitable. On the contrary, although I admit that the case is such as to require ample preparations to meet the dangers of war, yet I will not abandon the hope of maintaining peace. Practically, however, whatever my hopes or belief may be, they will not affect the course of proceeding of the Government. We shall make all preparations as if war were inevitable. My Lords, if war be inevitable, amongst others of the calamities which must necessarily be inflicted upon mankind by any such event will be this—and it is an additional misfortune—that it will interfere with our progress, social and political, and with all those measures that are most calculated for the welfare of the country. But I cannot admit that the mere apprehension of war is to interfere to prevent us from redeeming a pledge that we have given to Parliament and to the country, and which we are bound and determined to fulfil.

THE EARL OF DERBY

I must say that I have heard with very great regret the statement made by the noble Earl. I heard it with regret, because I think he has quite failed to meet the objection which, as I understand, is urged by the noble Earl (Earl Grey), with regard to the introduction of this measure of Parliamentary reform at the present moment. I do not apprehend that that noble Earl objected to the introduction of the measure, simply on the ground that its introduction would interfere with those naval and military preparations which Her Majesty's Government, as the Executive Power, has undertaken, but because at a moment when it is important that all party feeling should be sunk—at a time when all our attention ought to be directed to one object, and to one object only—namely, preparing for a war, which I believe the noble Lord is the only man in the country who does not believe inevitable—I say, I believe the objection of the noble Earl was, that Her Majesty's Government, for the purpose of redeeming a pledge which was given to the country under very different circumstances, are now running the serious risk of involving the House of Commons in a serious conflict, and of placing parties in a position in which, for the good of the country, it is eminently desirable that they should not be placed. I need not say to the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) that I agree with the noble Earl who preceded him, in having no great confidence in Her Majesty's present Ministers; but I concur with him not the less in anxiously and earnestly deprecating anything that might tend to remove those Ministers at this moment. I concur with the noble Earl in thinking that at all times under circumstances of public danger, a change of Government, which weakens the hands of the Executive, and throws uncertainty into the councils of the country, is to be deeply regretted; and, however strong a partisan the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's present Government may conceive me to be, and however determined to oppose the policy of the noble Earl as far as I understand that policy, I assure him I desire to see no change of Administration now: at all events, I hope the House and the country will give me credit for not desiring to sacrifice that which I believe to be for the good, the welfare, and the honour of the country, to any considerations of party advantage which could be derived from entering into such a question at such a time as the present. My Lords, the noble Earl upon the bench below has suggested the possible danger and risk arising out of the reform measure not being satisfactory to the country, and consequently involving either a dissolution of Parliament, or a resignation on the part of the Ministers. But, supposing this measure of Parliamentary Reform to be acceptable to the country—an extensive measure we are bound to presume it to be, or it would not be worth all the turmoil and trouble which will be caused by it—but supposing it to be adopted by Parliament, then the Parliament is condemned by its own declaration; and I want to know whether, in that case, such a Parliament is fit to continue to sit to advise the Crown, and to carry on the business of the country. Then, whether the measure be rejected, or be adopted, the proposition of it involves much inconvenience for the present, and at no distant period, a dissolution of the House of Commons; and I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they think—for party considerations or for the good of the country—that a dissolution of Parliament, in the course of the present Session, be a measure which can be taken with a due regard to the interests and safety of the country? My Lords, it is not of the interruption to public business that I complain; it is not of the interruption to the consideration of the naval and military Estimates; it is of the diversion of the attention of Parliament from that subject to which it ought to be mainly directed; it is of the introduction of party feeling where all ought to be harmony and concert in the promotion of one great object, namely, the defence of the country and the prosecution of the war. It is on that account that I concur with the noble Earl upon the bench below, in deeply deprecating the introduction, at this mo- ment, of a measure so certain to rouse party spirit and excite party animosities as a measure of Parliamentary Reform. I know not what course may be taken in the House of Commons by those who are not in the habit of giving their confidence to Her Majesty's Ministers; but I know that, if party feeling is allowed to prevail, the noble Earl and his colleagues have thrown out a temptation (which it may require some special firmness and virtue to resist) to a union in a vote adverse to the Government, upon a most vital proposition. Many of those who may not dissent from the measure itself, will doubtless object to the time and opportunity selected for its introduction; but, my Lords, I will venture here anxiously to express my hope—however reckless the conduct of the Government may be in throwing before the country such a subject for agitation, at such a moment—that they will find more public spirit and a better sense of the public welfare on the part of their opponents, which will prevent them from falling into the snare the noble Earl and his colleagues have offered to them. I trust that nothing will be done—I trust the House of Commons will not afford to the noble Earl and his colleagues even a chance of escaping from the difficulties of their present position. I trust that that measure, however we may deprecate and denounce the conduct of the Ministry in introducing it at such a time, may be received with the respect due to every communication authorised by the Crown, and that we, who are opponents of the Government, will not be parties to any party division separating the two sides of the House, at a time when agreement between them is most desirable, until Her Majesty's Government shall call upon us in a manner it is impossible to evade, to say aye or no to the principle of the proposed measure.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

My Lords, I heard an observation of great importance fall from the noble Earl at the head of the Government. I understand the noble Earl to say, that not only are we not now at war, but that he does not admit that war is inevitable. That sentiment coming from him, I wish to ask him, is he aware at this moment of any negotiation that is going on to put an end to the hostilities which are referred to in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, and which are popularly believed to be now raging in an important part of Europe?

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

I am aware that a state of warfare exists between Russia and the Porte; but I have yet to learn that this country is at war with any Power. I say that war may, unfortunately, be too probable; but I do not say that it is inevitable; and, so long as peace remains, I will not abandon the hope of maintaining it; and, please God, no efforts shall be spared on my part to maintain it.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

Precisely; and that is the reason why I must repeat the question I have asked, and which the noble Earl has not answered; namely, is the noble Earl aware of any negotiations that are now on foot to terminate the state of warfare which is alluded to in the Speech that was delivered from the Throne in the opening of Parliament?—a Speech very different in its tone from that which the noble Earl has addressed to your Lordships to-night.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

I have no objection to answer the noble Marquess' question. The negotiations have certainly come to a close at Vienna, relating to the propositions that were last under consideration. What may ensue hereafter, I am unable to say at present, nor do I think I am now called upon to state.

LORD BEAUMONT

Surely, that is no answer to the question put by the noble Marquess. That question is not as to what is going on at Vienna, but its object was to ascertain whether we are now negotiating for peace or not anywhere? I understood that the negotiations were completely closed—and as we are pledged to support the Sublime Porte, and pledged to I put an end to the state of affairs now existing in the Danubian Principalities; and as we have tried negotiations, and tried them too long, and found them to fail, are we not bound in honour to proceed to war? And are we not at this moment, if we are nut at war, or not proceeding to war, covering ourselves with disgrace? Therefore, I think that the question which has been put, is one that ought to be answered by Her Majesty's Government, and the question is this—are any negotiations now taking place on the part of this country for preserving peace?

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

There are none going on at present, and I have given that answer already to the noble Marquess.

LORD BEAUMONT

Then if no negotiations are going on for peace, are we to remain satisfied with things as they are, and take no other steps to put an end to the proceedings now taking place in the Principalities? That is the question.

EARL GRANVILLE

I think, my Lords, that there is some irregularity in our proceedings this evening. Questions have been put without any previous notice of them having been given; and even that question of importance which has been put to the noble Earl behind me (the Earl of Aberdeen) by the noble Earl below (Earl Grey) is in its character very irregular, because it related to the order of proceeding with the business to be taken in the other House of Parliament. But when the noble Marquess is not content with making, not one speech, but two speeches in the same discussion, but goes on also to put argumentative questions, and expects immediate answers to them, I put it to the good sense of your Lordships whether it is consistent with the dignity of the House that such irregularities should continue? All that my noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) has said—and I hope he is not the only person in the country who shares in the sentiment—is this, that while war has not been declared there are yet some chances of peace; and he further explicitly said, that he was not aware of any negotiations that were going on, but that there exists—as I myself sincerely hope may be the case—some slight chance of peace from this circumstance, that in consequence of the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government in concert with France, having resulted in a cordial co-operation between the various Powers of Europe, it was to be hoped that that cordial co-operation would be followed on the part of Russia by some departure from the violent and, I must say, imprudent course which she has taken.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

My Lords, I suppose I must consider myself to fall under the rebuke which the noble President of the Council has just administered; but I wish for myself to say that I repel that rebuke. It is not I but the noble Lord himself who is ignorant of the usages of Parliament, if he thinks it unusual, when the quostion of war or peace is concerned, for a Member of either House of Parliament to rise in his place after the Prime Minister has made a speech, and ask a question which immediately arises out of a gratuitous assertion which that Minister has made. I find no fault with what the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) has said, but his remarks demanded explanation, and therefore I put my question. The noble Earl answered frankly that he knew of no negotiation now going on at Vienna, or St. Petersburg, or Constantinople, or anywhere else; and, so far, that was a clear answer; but I say that mine was a very pertinent question to put; for the noble Earl held out to us that this country is not in a state of war, and followed up that declaration by expressing his belief that war is not inevitable. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the conclusion to which any noble Lord would naturally arrive from this statement of the Minister, must be different from that to which he arrived from Her Majesty's Speech. I maintain, therefore, that I was perfectly right in putting the question I did; and so far from taking the rebuke of the President of the Council as perhaps in all humility I ought to take it, I say that I, for one, will not fail in my place in Parliament to seek for an explanation whenever a Minister of the Crown throws out hints which I think require explanation. I have always agreed that it is convenient both for the sake of eliciting a clear answer, and for every other purpose, that notice should be given of the intention to put questions; but when assertions are made themselves without notice, and questions immediately arise out of those assertions, I believe that such questions may be put; and so long as Parliament maintains its independence of the Crown and its Ministers, I hope they will continue to be put.

EARL GREY

My Lords, I also rise to protest against the rebuke which the noble President of the Council has thought proper to administer to my noble Friend behind me (Lord Beaumont), to myself, and to the House. We are told that questions such as we took the liberty to put are inconsistent with the order of our proceedings and with the dignity of your Lordships' House. Now I believe it is perfectly regular that any proceedings of the Commons House of Parliament with which we become cognisant by their printed Votes, which are laid upon our table, should be taken notice of in this House, if any noble Lord amongst us thinks it expedient for the public welfare so to take notice of them. Therefore I deny that in founding a question on a notice in the Commons Votes, as I have done this evening, I have committed any irregularity. I am not aware either that my noble Friend behind me has been guilty of any irregularity; but I will say that I do not concur in the expediency of not pressing Her Majesty's Government for further information on this subject than they think proper to afford. I can assure the noble Earl at the head of the Government that I so entirely concur with him in his desire for the preservation of peace, that although the Russian Minister has left this country—although we have heard it reported that a part of Her Majesty's Guards are ready for embarkation—and although we may now be on the very eve of hostilities, still I have heard with the most unfeigned satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government do not despair of the maintenance of peace. Nothing shall fall from my lips in this House that might contribute in the least to their embarrassment, or might prevent their carrying on any negotiations or other measures which they may think proper to adopt, in order to avert the calamities with which we are threatened. My reasons, however, for putting my question are in no degree shaken by the answer of the noble Earl; for I believe that, from a false point of honour, and to redeem a pledge which they believe they have given, Her Majesty's Government are about wantonly and deliberately to risk the welfare, and perhaps the safety, of the country, by bringing forward at an inexpedient moment the subject of Parliamentary Reform.

House adjourned to Monday next.