The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-20 00:00:00

URDAY E YEN IN G, MARCH '2O, 1852.

liament and, on his responsibility as First Minister of the
Crown, should say that there was another measure also ne-
ccseary—as, for example, the Militia Bill—and should give
us an assurance that it was required for the defence of the
country, I think he would find us acquiescing in such a pro-
posal. My Lords, with regard to the Militia Bill, I look
with alarm at the prospect of mooting a question of such im-
portaace in a condemned and expiring Parliament. When
I know, further, that another most important measure, the
Chancery Relief. Bill, is to be presented to this House for ac-
ceptance, and may perhaps pass here, I am inclined to warn
the Noble Earl at the head of the Government and the Noble

and Learned Baron on the Woolsack that they will be en-
dangering that measure if, in the existing state of feeling in
the other House, they should lay it before them. A measure
of such vast importance would not be met in a fair spirit by
a Parliament which was not led by ,the Government, and
which had at the moment an interest in its own re-election.
My Lords, I have already denied that there is any desire on
our part to meet the Noble Earl's Government with a facti-
ous opposition; and I think that the Noble Earl might have
deduced as much from the manner in which the votes of
supply have been granted in the other House of Parliament.
But I am not now speaking what my own opinions may be
if the Government should attempt to carry out legislation
for a few months from this time ; but I know the power of
the House of Commons, and I know that it is in their power
to insist on the point of supply, and I deprecate and tremble
on the proposal of such a resource. I see with alarm that
the Noble Earl is likely to bring on a quarrel between him-
self as the Minister of the Sovereign and the representatives
of the people—a quarrel which, though it might be but a
short one, would be followed in all probability by the most
serious consequences—(Hear, hear)—and all, too, for an
object which, if attainable by the Noble Earl, is of small ap-
parent value, while the advantages of our course are palpable
on all sides. The Noble Earl on a former night had said
that one great object of his Government would be to raise
a barrier against the innovations of democracy, and to main-
tain the prerogatives of the Crown unimpaired. On both
those points I go along .with the Noble Earl ; but so far is
tdheemNecorbalcey thatE b
Earl from
is mfracomtanaollwy rtabisroinwgibag down
o wba the
eer
barriers
which now exist—(Cheers)—and is giving encouragement
and facilities for accomplishing objects which the legislation
of late years had disposed the people to abandon.
With regard to the prerogatives of the Crown, I repeat that
Igo along with the Noble Earl. But I think that he will
rather endanger than scours them if he proceeds in his pre-
sent career. I hope that those in the other House of Par-
liament who differ from the Noble Earl are prepared to act
by him as I would do. lam sure that if he would give us
that fair assurance which I have already described, he would
be met in t generous and confiding spirit. The question
would be set at rest for ever, and he would only have to ask
for supplies and they would be readily granted. The Noble
Earl may perhaps object that there are constitutional ob-
jections to such an announcement. For my part, I cannot
see them. I have referred to precedents for such a course,
and I find them numerous. I have seen it stated in print

that Parliament has nothing to do with its own existence
—that it ought to attend to its own business—and that the
continuance or dissolution of its existence depends on the
Sovereign, and on the Sovereign alone. I know
that this may be SO ; but, so far as regards the announce-
ment of an approaching dissolution in the Speech from the
Throne, I know also that the Sovereign has on many occa •
sions—particularly in 1807 and 1831—referred to such an
event, and has spoken of summoning a new Parliament.
There is nothing unconstitutional, my Lords, in such a
proceeding. In 1841 Lord John Russell, on being asked by
Sir R. Peel whether he intended to dissolve the Parliament

because he had bean placed in a minority, stated most
succinctly and most correctly that, under ordinary circum-
stances, it would be improper that a question should be put
to a Minister as to the advice which he intended to give
to his Sovereign ; but he looked on the circumstances under
which Sir R. Peel asked the question, as circumstances of
an extraordinary character, and therefore he readily gave
an answer to it, and said that he intended to dissolve. The
Noble Duke here became nearly inaudible in the gallery, and
we heard only a few more of his observations. I hope, said
he, that in these observations I have avowed nothing more
than a disapproval of the course which the Noble Earl pro-
poses to take. I assure the Noble Earl that I wished to
avoid all provoking topics, but still I do feel warmly on
these questions. I feel that the question of protection must
be submitted to the country, and settled without delay ;
and 1 feel still more strongly that the intention of persever-
ing in going on with a Parliament in which the Prime
Minister has no majority, is far too dangerous an intention
to allow any one who loves his country and respects its con-
stitution, to see it executed without at least protesting against

it I shall now sit down, concluding with the ordinary motion,
that the petition be laid upon the table, and I hope that
the Noble Earl will be able in the performance of his duty
to answer the question, which I shall put to him, in such a
manner as will prevent irritation and ill-blood arising in
Parliament and in the country. I beg to ask the Noble
Lord whether he is prepared to assure the House that her
Majesty will be advised by her Ministers to dissolve the
present and to call a new Parliament as early as the public
service may demand. The Noble Duke then sat down amid
much cheering.
The Earl of DERBY then rose and spoke as follows :—I
am far from complaining, my Lords, either of the speech
which the Noble Duke has just delivered, or of the question
which he has just put to me, or of the tone and spirit which
characterised his observations. I think that in the position
in which the Noble Duke stands, it is as natural that he
should put this question to me in this House, as it is natural
that the head of the late Government should put it to my
Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the
other House, as I have just heard that he has done. I hope
that I shall not be considered as treating the Noble Duke
with the slightest disrespect, if I refuse to renew on the
present occasion a discussion on the same subject on which
I addressed your Lordships at some length on a former
occasion, or if I decline to enter into tke merits or demerits
of -free trade, or into the consequences which result from
it. One remark, however, I must make, in consequence
of an observation of the Noble Duke, that from every
country in Europe, or at least from various countries in
Europe, there had been addressed to my Noble Friend the
Secretary of State for Foreiagn Affairs, communications, in-
forming him of the alarms entertained in consequence of the
state of suspense and uncertainty now prevailing in the mar-
kets of this country. I thought at the time that I was my-
self conversant with all the dispatches from foreign countries
which my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, has received since his appointment to office; and,
since I heard the Noble Duke's remark, I have been con-
firmed in my own conviction by my Noble Friend's assurance
that no representations, such as the Noble Duke described,
have reached her Majesty's Government from any quarter.
The Noble Duke has also thought fit to refer to the language
which I used on a former occasion, in regard to another pe-
tition, and one of my reasons for now addressing your Lord-
ships is that I wish to set him right as teethe mode in which
I spoke of the parties to that petition. I did not, my Lords,
impute to those petitioners any ignorance as to their own
interests, or to this subject. All that I said was that
the petitioners were not many in number, and that their
interest in land did not appear to be very great ; and
in alluding to one individual who does not appear to
have taken any offence at my words, I certainly did say
that his interest in land was not such as would lead him to
entertain an overwhelming apprehension of the mischief
likely to arise from the uncertainty of our policy in respect
of the corn laws. I most frankly admit that the body of
petitioners whom the Noble Duke represents is entitled to
respect for any opinions which they may entertain. Bat
the Noble Duke himself told us that he received their peti-
tion the day after I had spoken on the former petition.
Its date, too, is previous to that of the last discussion
which we had in this House on the subject. I believe
that the Noble Duke received it on the next day, and
therefore it is possible that their anxiety is now miti-
gated by the ;knowledge which they have now acquired of
the course which the Government is going to pursue. But
m 7 Lords I am also obliged to the Noble Duke for one ad-
mission he made to me in the course of his speech. The
uncertainty of which the Noble Duke complained was an
uncertainty which had not existed merely for the last few
days, bat which, according to the Noble Duke, had affected
the course of trade not for the last few months, but for the
Net five or six years. The uncertainty it was said
must continue till the new Parliament was assembled.
Now, how was it that it never occurred either to the
Noble Duke himself, or to the head of the late Govern-
ment, to submit the question of that uncertainty to a new
Parliament? lam inclined to believe that that uncertainty
will now be put an end to, in a new Parliament, by us at
an earlier period than it would have been terminated by
the late Government, in the existing Parliament. I must
also tell the Noble Duke, that in the present circumstances
of the country, in the present state of the public securities,
and in the present state of the markets, I cannot trace that
alarm which the Noble Duke describes as pervading every
portion of the country. I am not sure, my Lords, that I
should have entered further into this subject at present than
was necessary to remind you' of the course which her Ma-
jesty's Government had said on a former occasion that it
would adept had it not been for certain constitutional ques-
tions which the Noble Duke has raised, and to which , for
one, hesitate to give my unqualified approbation. There are
certain opinions entertained by us, and which, I believe are
not shared either by the other House of Parliament
or by this. I stated that if the questions on
which we entertained such opinions were pressed
upon us, we should be in a minority, and that we
must rest on the forbearance of our opponents, as well as
on the indulgence of our friends. But on such questions as
her Majesty's Government is now prepared to submit to Par-
liament, there is no proof that we are in a minority. Ido
not, my Lords, pretend to deny the inconvenience of carry-
ing on the business of the country by a Government unable
to command a majority in either House of Parliament ; but
I consider that in the position in which we are placed we are
contending with conflicting difficulties and inconveniences,
and I think that the danger is less from the continuance of
the present state of things for a short time than from the
instant dissolution of the other House of Parliament. It
must be left to the discretion of Ministers to determine what
measures -they would submit to the other House, and at
what time. I must now tell the Noble Duke that lam not
acting on the precedent of Mr. Pitt, in the year 1784—which
I fully admit has no analogy with the present case—but 1
thane ven
from a still more recent example which I think
the
the Noble Duke will consider deserving of respect.
vernment
year 1834 Sir R. Peel was at the head of a (Jo
circumstance
the House of
draw my defence of the conduct of her Majesty's Government
not in command of the confidence of
Commons. He foundeople
pp aled to the people.
dissolved the Parliament,
and a—
e the answer of the
Sir R. Peel was placed in a onminoritvo
a minority upon the
Speech from the Throne, he wasasalso
i minorit upon an
choice of the Speaker, and he was
to
theappropriation of the
with regard
important resolution But, just in passing, let Inc
revenues of the Irish Church.
of something in reference to what
having
Right
g h
t
remind your Lordships
fell from my Noble
being strong in a Parliamentary majority.
opposite,
himself i
as ptoow etrhse
of an Opposition
on one occasion in that position, and
Sir Robert
he would state to
thought it fit to take upon that
Hon. Gentleman
Peel
wasthe House the course whicalifttehret
s which flowed from occasion,
and the consequences which it. The Opposition
- strong Par iamentary majrity, it was th b
being in a oug t y
ood political move to pledge the House of
Commons to a specific declaration. They therefore pro-
posed that the House of Commons should declare that no
settlement upon the particular question then
under consi-
deration could be safe or satisfactory unless it involved the
Friend
specific proposition for which they were then contending.
The Government (upon that occasion was defeated, and
shortly after the Opposition who so defeated Sir Robert Peel
succeeded to office. Having done so, no great time elapsed
before the new Government found themselves compelled to
abandon the very proposition which they had previously de-
clared to be essential to a satisfactory settlement, and to
come to a conclusion which from that time to this had not
been disturbed, without including the sine qua non they had
before stated to be necessary for any permanent arrange-
ment of the question. What was the course pursued by Sir
Robert Peel under those circumstances, in a Parliament of
his own choosing, and in which he was perpetually in a con-
stantly recurring minority? He held this language,—
have been called upon to assume the responsibility of Cell
ducting the public business of the country. 1 will not
•
shrink from that responsibility so long as I believe that I can
conduct it satisfactorily, and can carry through such measures
as I believe to be for the public advantage that i ahould sub-
mit to the consideration of Parliament." It was not, then,
. ho
a question of dissolution, but it was a question of t