The Parliamentary Debate on the Address

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

THE opening of Parliament was a lusterless ceremony. The absence of the Queen and the reading of the Speech from the Throne by the Lord Chancellor banished every theatrical effect. The Speech from the Throne itself is short without being striking. It recapitulates the faits accomplis of foreign politics and, for an estimation of these facts, refers to the documents submitted to Parliament. Only one phrase created a certain sensation, the phrase in which the Queen “trusts there is no reason to apprehend any disturbance of the peace of Europe.” This phrase in fact implies that European peace is relegated to the domain of hope and faith.

In accordance with parliamentary practice, the gentlemen who moved the Reply to the Speech from the Throne in the two Houses had already been commissioned by the ministers with this business three weeks ago. In conformity with the usual procedure, their Reply consists of a broad echo of the Speech from the Throne and of fulsome praises that the ministers bestow upon themselves in the name of Parliament. When Sir Francis Burdett anticipated the official movers of the Address in 1811 and seized the opportunity to subject the Speech from the Throne to a cutting criticism, Magna Charta itself appeared to be imperiled. Since that time no further enormity of the kind has happened.

The interest of the debate on the Speech from the Throne is therefore limited to the “hints” of the official Opposition club and the “counter-hints” of the ministers. This time, however, the interest was more academic than political. It was a question of the best funeral oration on Prince Albert, who during his life found the yoke of the English oligarchy by no means light. According to the vox populi, Derby and Disraeli have borne off the academic palm, the first as a natural speaker, the other as a rhetorician.

The “business” part of the debate turned on the United States, Mexico, and Morocco.

With regard to the United States, the Outs (those out of office) eulogized the policy of the Ins (the meati possidentes). Derby, the Conservative leader in the House of Lords, and Disraeli, the Conservative leader in the Lower House, opposed not the Cabinet, but each other.

Derby in the first place gave vent to his dissatisfaction over the absence of “pressure from without.” He “admired,” he said, the stoical and dignified bearing of the factory workers. As far as the mill owners were concerned, however he must exclude them from his commendation. For them the

American disturbance had come in extraordinarily handy, since overproduction and glutting of all markets had in any case imposed on them a restriction of trade.

Derby went on to make a violent attack on the Union government, “which had exposed itself and its people to the most undignified humiliation” and had not acted like “gentlemen,” because it had not taken the initiative and voluntarily surrendered Mason, Slidell and company and made amends. His seconder in the Lower House, Mr. Disraeli, at once grasped how very damaging Derby’s onslaught was to the hopes of the Conservatives. He therefore declared to the contrary: “When I consider the great difficulties which the statesmen of North America have to encounter … I would venture to say that they have met these manfully and courageously.”

On the other hand—with the consistency customary to him—Derby protested against the “new doctrines” of maritime law. England had at all times upheld belligerent rights against the pretensions of neutrals. Lord Clarendon, it was true, had made a dangerous concession at Paris in 1856. Happily, this had not yet been ratified by the Crown, so that “it did not change the position of international law.” Mr. Disraeli, on the contrary, manifestly in collusion with the ministry here, avoided touching on this point at all. Derby approved of the non-intervention policy of the ministry. The time to recognize the Southern Confederacy has not yet come, but he demands authentic documents for the purpose of judging “how far the blockade is bona fide and effective and … whether the blockade has been such a one as ought to be recognized and respected by the law of nations.” Lord John Russell, on the other hand, declared that the Union government had employed a sufficient number of ships in the blockade, but had not everywhere carried this out consistently. Mr. Disraeli will permit himself no judgment on the nature of the blockade, but demands ministerial papers for enlightenment. He gives such emphatic warning against any premature recognition of the Confederacy since England is compromising herself at the present moment by threatening an American state (Mexico), the independence of which she herself was the first to recognize.

After the United States, it was Mexico’s turn. No member of Parliament condemned a war without declaration of war, but they condemned interference in the internal relations of a country under the shibboleth of a “nonintervention policy,” and the coalition of England with France and Spain in order to intimidate a semi-defenseless land. As a matter of fact, the Outs merely indicated that they reserve Mexico to themselves for party maneuvers. Derby demands documents on both the Convention between the three powers and the mode of carrying it out. He approves of the Convention because—in his view—the right way was for each of the contracting parties to enforce its claims independently of the others. Certain public rumors caused him to fear that at least one of the powers—Spain—purposed operations verging on betrayal. As if Derby really believed the great power, Spain, capable of the audacity of acting counter to the will of England and France! Lord John Russell answered: The three powers pursued the same aim and would anxiously avoid hindering the Mexicans from regulating their own affairs.

In the Lower House, Mr. Disraeli defers any judgment prior to scrutinizing the documents submitted. However, he finds “the announcement of the government suspicious.” The independence of Mexico was first recognized by England. This recognition recalls a notable policy—the anti-Holy-Alliance policy—and a notable man, Canning. What singular occasion, then, drove England to strike the first blow against this independence? Moreover, the intervention has changed its pretext within a very short time. Originally it was a question of satisfaction for wrong done to English subjects. Now there are whispers concerning the introduction of new governmental principles and the setting up of a new dynasty. Lord Palmerston refers members to the papers submitted and to the Convention that prohibits the “subjugation” of Mexico by the Allies or the imposition of a form of government distasteful to the people. At the same time, however, he discloses a secret diplomatic corner. He has it from hearsay that a party in Mexico desires the transformation of the republic into a monarchy. The strength of this party he does not know. He, “for his part, only desires that some form of government be set up in Mexico with which foreign governments may treat.” He declares the nonexistence of the present government. He claims for the alliance of England, France and Spain the prerogative of the Holy Alliance to decide over the existence or nonexistence of foreign governments. “That is the utmost,” he adds modestly, “which the government of Great Britain is desirous of obtaining.” Nothing more!

The last “open question” of foreign policy concerned Morocco. The English government has concluded a convention with Morocco in order to enable her to pay off her debt to Spain, a debt with which Spain could never have saddled Morocco without England’s leave. Certain persons, it appears, have advanced Morocco money with which to pay her installments to Spain, thus depriving the latter of a pretext for further occupation of Tetuan and renewal of war.193 The English government has in one way or another guaranteed these persons the interest on their loan and, in its turn, takes over the administration of Morocco’s customs houses as security.

Derby found this manner of ensuring the independence of Morocco “rather strange,” but elicited no answer from the ministers. In the Lower House Mr. Disraeli went into the transaction further: it was “to some extent unconstitutional,” since the ministry had saddled England with new financial obligations behind Parliament’s back. Palmerston simply referred him to the “documents” submitted.

Home affairs were hardly mentioned. Derby merely warned members, out of regard “for the state of mind of the Queen,” not to raise “disturbing” controversial questions like parliamentary reform. He is ready to pay his tribute of admiration regularly to the English working class, on condition that it suffers its exclusion from popular representation with the same stoicism as it suffers the American blockade.

It would be a mistake to infer from the idyllic opening of Parliament an idyllic future. Quite the contrary! Dissolution of Parliament or dissolution of the ministry is the motto of this year’s session. Opportunity to substantiate these alternatives will be found later.