Contemporary Events
[Rambler, July 1859.]
1. The New Parliament
On April 19, in her Speech dissolving Parliament, her Majesty used the following words, which express more of political principle and personal feeling than is usual with such state-papers:
“We are commanded by her Majesty to inform you that it is her Majesty’s intention forthwith to dissolve the present Parliament, with a view to enable her people to express, in the mode prescribed by the constitution, their opinions on the state of public affairs.
“Her Majesty commands us to inform you that the appeal which she is about to make to her people has been rendered necessary by the difficulties experienced in carrying on the public business of the country, as indicated by the fact that within little more than a year two successive Administrations have failed to retain the confidence of the House of Commons; and her Majesty prays that, under the blessing of Divine Providence, the step which she is about to take may have the effect of facilitating the discharge of her high functions, and of enabling her to conduct the government of the country under the advice of a Ministry possessed of the confidence of her Parliament and people.”
Parliament accordingly was dissolved in the ordinary way on April 23, and the elections followed.
The new Parliament, the sixth of the present reign, was opened by the Queen in person on the 7th of June.
Two questions were before the country,—its home policy and its foreign the questions of Parliamentary Reform, and of the French Alliance. The former of the two administrations, of which the Queen speaks in her speech on dissolving Parliament, had lost power on the foreign question; the ministry which succeeded had lost the confidence of the House of Commons on the home question, and had only staved off a resignation by the dissolution, which had been the main subject of her Majesty’s Speech.
2. Debate in the Commons on the Queen’s Speech, and Amendment on it carried
In her Speech in opening the new Parliament, the Queen spoke of both questions thus:
Of the foreign, which, though it had taken a very different shape, was substantially the same as that on which Lord Palmerston lost office:
“War has been declared between France and Sardinia on one side, and Austria on the other. Receiving assurances of friendship from both the contending parties, I intend to maintain between them a strict and impartial neutrality; and I hope, with God’s assistance, to preserve to my people the blessing of continued peace.”
Of the home, which was the difficulty of Lord Derby:
“I should with pleasure give my sanction to any well-considered measure for the amendment of the laws which regulate the representation of my people in Parliament; and, should you be of opinion that the necessity of giving your immediate attention to measures of urgency relating to the defence and financial condition of the country will not leave you sufficient time for legislating, with due deliberation, during the present session, on a subject at once so difficult and so extensive, I trust that at the commencement of the next session your earnest attention will be given to a question, of which an early and satisfactory settlement would be greatly to the public advantage.”
In the House of Commons the opposition moved an amendment on the Address in answer to the Royal Speech. Lord Hartington, who was their spokesman, said:
“I do not suppose her Majesty’s Government can complain of the course which we are taking. The issue which we now put to the House is simply that which the Government have already put to the people. And it is to that question that I now ask the representatives of the people to give an answer. In dissolving the late Parliament, her Majesty’s Government had not done so upon any particular measure. They did not complain that they were not supported in their foreign policy. They simply put this issue to the country; they said, ‘For two sessions we have endeavoured to carry on the business of the country, without being able, upon a party division, to go into the lobby with a majority of this house.’ They said that such a position was no longer consistent with their own dignity or advantageous to the country. And they asked the country to return a House of Commons which might convert their minority into a majority. Sir, I hope that the decision of the challenge which has been thus thrown down, and which we thus accept, will, at the conclusion of this debate, be received by both Parties in a spirit of fairness and of honour. For myself I can say, and I believe that in so doing I speak the sentiments of almost all the members on this side of the house, that if we are defeated on this amendment we shall cheerfully and willingly bow to the decision of the House. We shall then know what is our position as an opposition.”
The Amendment ran in the following strong form of words:
“We beg humbly to submit to your Majesty that it is essential, in order to secure these satisfactory results, and particularly in the discharge of these high functions, that your Majesty’s Government should possess the confidence of this House and of the country; and we deem it our duty respectfully to represent to your Majesty that such confidence is not reposed in your Majesty’s present Government.”
On the morning of June 11, 2 a.m., the division took place, when Government was defeated in a House of 633 members by a majority of 13; 323 being for the amendment, and 310 against it.