The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-26 00:00:00

liament except Hyam Ferrara. He therefore disfranchised
145 seats in Parliament whose members always voted agaist
the interests of the people and in favour of every corrupt
measure brought forward by a Tory Minister, whilst at the
same time he rescued Scotland,
tell you the result
being. a great rotten bo-
rough, to be so independent, that I will
of what Scotland did at the late change of Ministry. It is
this—ln fact, were it not for Scotland, you would have had
Lord Derby now in power. (Cheers.)
When Lord John
wasand his colleagues resigned (I am now coming very near to
the present times—within a few months) her Majestyto
advised, I think very wisely, to see what they couldo,
send for Lord Derby. Lord Derby went to Buckingham
to
Palace, and he was empowered by her Majesty to form an
Administration. Lord Derby having received this com-
mission, went from Buckingham Palace to ahouse mra.xlc
lane, where resided a gentleman distinguished by the bril-
liancy, the fluency, and the acrimony of his eloquence.
do not believe that he is of the Jewish persuasion himself;
but this I do know that paternally and maternally, he
belongs to the Israelitish nation. lam not at all illiberal
with respect to that ; I have voted and will vote for re-
lieving the Jew; from their disabilities ; I merely
state the fact, that to this eloquent member of
Parliament was intrusted that great essential maxim
of our liberties and taxation—to him was intrusted
the carrying out of that principle, that no subject
of her Majesty should be taxed without his own con-
sent through his representatives in Parliament. The Derby
Administration was formed. Mr. Disraeli was entrusted
with the most important responsibility in the country; as
Chancellor of the Exchequer he had the whole responsi-
bility of the immense taxation, the revenue and the ex-
penditure of the United Kingdom, everything from the
salary of the Prime Minister down to the mere wages of
the letter-carrier. With regard to the personnel of the
Derby Administration, there were several very excellent
men in it. I must do that Administration the justice to
say, that with regard to their legal appointments, never
were there more able or better men, probably, with one or
two exceptions. Their Lord Chancellor was the greatest
Equity lawyer that this country ever had at the head of
the Court of Chancery. He had long determined that he
inent, and I believe
would do away with the delays and iniquities of that op-
pressive, vexatious, and interminable Court. Their At-
pay
.a just tribute to
otoitornzfueenr:rlaflofrolrrEelnagulda,nwd,earendallthee2t Attorney and Soli-
Coe.clonial-office.
t, I
er, I do not
toas htohneesHkolma7Derespaasrtemvoeur
must pay
With regard
regard
de ;:toand u
our foreign
fairfore
itgb u
relations,t e also t thhoew
31WrithWrale
think the Earl of Malmesbury was to be trusted ; his lean-
ings being altogether towards absoutism, as allhis
tions prove. I will say nothing about the minor app6jnt
meats further than this—that some of them were exceed.-
ingly discreditable—men who were appointed to do the
dirty work of a Protectionist Government. Very well,
they entered on power. They met the Parliament which
then existed. It was necessary for the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to bring forward a budget. Lord Derby, in
the House of Peers, still declared himself a Protectionist
—predicted ruin to the country if we persisted in
the Free-trade system ; Mr. Disraeli was rather
more cautious in the House of Commons ; but his
colleagues, when they went to be re-elected, still de-
clared themselves Protectionists. We found we could not I
put our trust in them. However, it was necessary, as I

have stated, to bring forward a budget, and Mr. Disraeli did
produce a financial scheme, which he brought forward with
very great ability—extraordinary ability. He was cheered
by the House of Commons—he was eulogised by the press,
and generally praised out of doors. Out of regard to the
peculiar circumstances of the Government, we passed all
the estimates without a division. As Chancellor of the
Excheque, Mr. Disraeli got gloriously through the budget
and the estimates for the remaining part of the session.
But it is painful to revert to certain circumstances con-
nected with this subject. Mr. Disraeli had previously
stated that Sir Robert Peel's administration had surprised
the Whigs when they were bathing, had stolen their
clothes, and came into office wearing their garments. Un-
fortunately the budget which Mr. Disraeli brought forward
was not his own. It had been previously prepared. The
Army Estimates were prepared by Mr. Fox Menlo, now
Lord Panmure ; Mr. Disraeli found them at the Horse
Guards. The Navy Estimates were prepared by Sir Fran-
cis Baring : Mr. Disraeli found them at the Admiralty.
The Ordnance Estimates were prepared by General Anson:
Mr. Disraeli found them in Pall Mall. The Colonial Esti-
mates had been prepared by Lord Grey : Mr. Disraeli
found them in the cul de sac at the bottom of Downing
Street. The Estimates for the Miscellaneous and Contin-
gent Expenditure were prepared by Sir Charles Wood and
the Lords of the Treasury; Mr. Disraeli found them com-
fortably folded up within red tape in his new residence at
the Exchequer so that he at all events had discovered the
old clothes of others that had been there before him. Lord
Derby, in the House of Peers, declared himself still for
Protection—he said the country had thriven under Pro-
tection : that the prosperity we had enjoyed for some
years past was purely accidental, in consequence of our
having had good harvests and other circumstances which
he stated. Mr. Disraeli stated the same in the House of
Commons—still adhering to Protection. They then said we
will dissolve Parliament; we will go to the country: we will
abide by its verdict, in full confidence that we shall have
a majority to' enable us to govern the country upon Pro-
tectionist principles. They did dissolve Parliament ; and
they went to the elections. Never was there so mnch in-
trigue, never was there so much immorality practised as
at those elections ; yet notwithstanding all that, when
Parliament met afterwards, such was the good sense of the
people—so great the benefits they had derived under free
trade, full employment, from the great prosperity of
manufactures and commerce, with all the advantages of
being fed, better clothed, and better sheltered than they
had been before—they sent a large and decided majority
to the House of Commons in favour of free trade. (Cheers.)
On the 4th of Nov. 1852, Parliament met. In the mean-
time, the Duke of Wellington having departed this life at
Weimer, on the 12th of that month, Mr. Disraeli, in the
House of Commons communicated a message from her
Majesty, intimating that it was her Majesty's gracious
wish that the Duke of Wellington should have a public
funeral at the expense of the country. On that occasion"
the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a brilliant ora-
tion worthy of Fenelon or Massilon, to the memory of the
illustrious departed hero. But if the shade of the Duke
of Wellington had been present it must have shuddered to
have heard his funeral oration was not that of an Englishman
but of a Frenchman. It was an oration delivered over a
French General who was buried some years before at Pere
la Chaise, every word of all its inunortelles, and all by that
witty, sparkling French statesman, known as the author
of several romances which he calls histories. It was an
oration by M. Theirs—(a laugh)—at the grave of General
St. Cyr. These were stolen goods at all events.
(Loud cheers.) A few days afterwards, the Free-traders
and others in the House of Commons wore determined
to bring the Derby-Disraeli Government at once to declare
whether their policy was to be that of free trade and Libe-
ral principles ; and Mr. Charles Villiers was entrusted with
a resolution to this effect, that "free trade is just, wise,
and beneficial." It is quite true that the Derby Govern-
ment obstructed us, but they themselves were compelled
to declare, both in the House of Peers and in the House of
Commons, that a return to Protection was an impossibility ;
and we carried Mr. Villiers' resolution that " free trade is
just, wise, and beneficial," all the members of the Derby
Government, and even Sir Robert Inglis, going out into
the lobby with us. We therefore settled the question of
free trade for ever. Then came the question of the politi-
cal integrity and morality of the Derby Government. Mr.
Disraeli had declared—l believe, as a disappointed man—
that the Government of Sir Robert Peel was " an organ-
ised hypocrisy." The country, fortunately, thought other-
wise. They considered the measures he brought forward
were practical, were consistent with the circumstances and
necessities of the times, that his free trade measures espe-
cially were permanent realities. We then began to think
that Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli and their colleagues,
having for ten previous years resisted ever/ thing like the
appearance of free trade and Liberal sentiments—having
declared, on coming into power, that their policy should
be to arrest the dangerous progress of democracy,
which was undermining the institutions of the country,
and admit of no system of education, except that which
should be strictly and indissolubly connected with the
Established Church of England, we began to think that
the proper designation of the Derby-Disraeli Govern-
ment was a great political immorality. (Cheers.) We,
the Liberal members of the House of Commons—and I
am glad to say there were none more Liberal than certain
members of the Peel Government, both as regards civil and
political liberty, as well as that connected with our com-
mercial and industrial operations—we, the liberal members,
were determined to bring them to the test. We knew very
well that Mr. Disraeli must now, at length, bring forward
a budget of his own. He had to fulfil some pledges of his
colleagues. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
for instance, addressing the electors of North Lincolnshire,
said that he was still a Protectionist—that Lord Derby was
a Protectionist—that Mr. Disraeli was the great leader of
the Protectionists—and then there was their veracious Soli-
tor-General, in addressing the electors of East Suffolk, said
" we are going back to Protection as before—give us power
and we will do it." The country, he said, had been de-
ceived by Sir R. Peel—the country was still Conservative.
Mr. Forbes Mackenzie said the same thing. There were
rather blacker things done at Derby and other elections.
Well, Mr. Disraeli did bring in his budget. It did con-
tain some good ' things • and he certainly put the best things
in the front. I admit at once that his proposals with re-
spect to merchant shipping, by taking off the various re-
strictions as to the manning of our ships, and other parts
of that measure, were quite equal to that passed by the
present Government. But in admitting that, I am obliged
to stop. The rest of the budget, if it were his own bud-
get, which I can hardly conceive—from his really well-
known abilities, I should say it was forced on him—for it
exhibited so great a want of financial sagacity, with such an
utter ignorance of the sentiments and interests of the coun-
try, that I can only regard it as the last expiring effort of a
desperate party. He proposed, in order to relieve the agri-
cultural interest, to take off half the malt tax, sacrificing
two millions and a half of revenue. Nov, if the duty
could have been altogether abolished, it might have been
very well ; but taking away one half of it would, practi-
cally speaking, have given no relief to the agricultural in-
terest. There would still have been the presence of the
exciseman, and the great malsters and brewers would have
got the whole benefit, from which the consumer would
have derived no advantage, for he could not have got his
beer not one halfpenny cheaper. And then there was to
be an increase in the amount, and an extended area given
to the house tax by including the houses valued at 101. and
upwards, and doubling the tax above the previous limit of
201. All this for the purpose of making up a remission of
taxation in behalf of the landlords. Mr. Disraeli brought
this forward with great ingenuity and skill ;
and I admit
that, if he had agreed to what I and others had proposed
he
—if he had agreed to abolish the whole soap duty—if
had agreed to reduce the duty on tea from 2s 24d to at
the end of three years—if he had agreed to abolish the
duty on advertisements, and various other things, pointed
out by myself and' others, we might have agreed in prin-
ciple to the increase of the area, and doubling the rate of
the house tax, as a direct tax ; but he did not, and we
had to meet him. After a very skilful speech, he was
answered by Mr. Gladstone in one of the most powerful
speeches over heard in the House of Commons—l believe
the most powerful and conclusive ever pronounced upon a
financialquestion. What was the consequence? We di-
vided, and we left the Derby Government ins, minority. In
a house of 591 members, they had 286 votes, including all
those who had since been unseated for bribery and corru
tion. We had on the Liberal side 305 votes—the whole num ble;
inthe house voting being greater than in any other division
since the passing of the Reform Bill. Our majority
was
therefore nineteen against the absolute Tory Government
of Lord Derby. (Cheers.) But I have to remark that
ill
consequence of the bribery and corruption 'which prevailed,
a majority of 15 English members;
Lord Derby had taking
also into consideration the bribery that was practised to
the Irish to the agreat extent in Ireland, and adding
Eng-
lish members, Lord Derby had still a majority of 4 in the
scale; but when we come to include members who voted
from Scotland, and this is a most glorious fact, that in the
first place no Scotch member has been unseated for cor-
ruption; and when we came to decide upon thegreatprin-
ciples of civil, religious, and commercial freedom, the
Scotch members gave a majority of the whole against Lord
Derby of 19, (Cheers.) Let not Scotland forget that we