The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-08 00:00:00

tlelhourne alluded was at first inexplicable. The secret, we
new knew is hat it meats. Mr. Shed, who is a greet rbetori-
aian, Ise7ng reported to Lava said that Ministers had eatared
no) a compact with Mr. O'Connell and the Mali Members at
Lichfield House, asserted that he had been misreported, and
said he had stated that it was not a ccmpact, but a " corn-
,nsiset all'ance," which had been formed. The terms of this
compact, or compact elliance, were expressly stated by Mr.
setae tie said that the Whigs, as a party', were now pledged
for ever and ever to the secular appropriation of ecclesiastical
oroperty, without which all Church reform would be a mere
imposture, There it the compact rtlhm,eo) and these are
the terms ;von which it is framed, The grend object
of our forefathers was to identify the State with Protes.
taut chservances. Alas ! In the present day the great
object of those who boast of their liberality is to sever the
connection existing between Church and State. I cannot
take any part in stiAt a course--( Cheers,) I believe it to
be wrong ; I believe it to be impolie ; and, bigot though
1 may be called far saying so, I b !beat, it to be
(Cheers.) I have taken by steed upon this pdint. Ido not
y that the establislenern a perfect —I do net say thatit is not
susceptible of impronennt, but I aey that 1 never .ill begin
t ref ala by subverting it,_(Cheers.) I will not tegin to
apely a remedy by robbing the Chureli of its property. lam
willing to remove defects in the Establishment. I think that
some of the sinecures of the Church ought to be applied to the
aotwis entat. •e oof the revenues of parochial clergy' in populous
oitnects__( Cheers.) That is my frank and decided opinion,
but I will never come nt to appoint a Commission for the ma-
nagement of Church property, N‘ith the view of abolishing
Church-rates, which have always been a charge unon the land,
and putting the amount into the pceke's of the landlords.
Neithee am I prepared to say that a perfect equalization of
Church property would be practicable or desirable. Effect
a geeeral equalisation of Church property and you could
never get men to encounter the expense of beim! well
educated, in many instances at the Uriversities, where the
cost cannot be less than 1,000!., if they were to expect
only the paltry pittance of 2001. a-year.—( Cheers.) I
find that I have entered further into this subject than I in-
tended, but I will now quit it. I have glanced at the conduct
of the Government upon some domestic questions. What has
been their conduct with respect to the colonies ?---( Loud cries
of " Hear," and " Shame.") How stands the Canadian ques-
tion with respect to which the public mind is agitated? I de-
clare that there appears a possibility of the wish which one of
your Representatives expressed on the hustings, with respect
to our colonial possessions, being realised. There is, unhap-
pily, a chance of one of our colonies following the advice which
Mr. Hume gave it, to throw off the " baneful domination of
the mother country." Let me ask what has been the conduct
of Government with respect to the gentlemen who held this
violent language. What individuals distinguished themselves
!cost in the last Parliament by the violence of their language p
Certainly they were Mr. Leader end Mr, Hume. These
individuals not only instigated their fellow-subjects in Ca-
nada to opeu insurrection by declaring that the merit of
the dispute was on their side, but expressed a hope the,
if they rose in rebellion, they might succeed, Now,
mark the conduct of Government. Parliament was dig.
solved and a good Conservative stood for Middlesex, in oppo-
sition to Mr. Hume. fie was a gentleman connected with
" ships, colonies, and commerce." Did Government support
him against Mr. Hume, who had advised the Canadians to
throw off the baneful dominion of the mother country ? Far
from it; they did their ut cost to exclude the Cemservativo
commercial gentlemen who was bent yti preserving our cola-
'lien and exerted f!cie infinenOn in favour of Mr. Hume.
This is not all. Next to Mr. Recheck, Mr. Lead( r had dis-
tinguished himself by the violence of his language on this
question. At the time when Sir Ft antis Burdett, in 4. manner
which I shall ever 014,1 worthy of-his coerasse end British
sentiments, voluntarily resigned his apse, in order to ascertain
wleether he had lust the confidence of the electors, Mr.
Leader's aentiments oa the subject of Canala were well known ;
the sentiments of the " fine old English gentleman" were
equally notorious—that he would rather sacrifice his princely
fortune, than see Canada stripped frem the Crown of England.
Such being the state of the case, will it be believed that Lord
041merston, one of het, Majesty's Secretaii 's of State, actually
pursued u eLde
Leader
etrh last Pe.
gf
for
went out of his way to vote for Mr. Leader?—( Hear, hear.)
np"erurhkaalete,":lfel\sti:o,t:illie:vcoUtounprsoelinlV'titihilaCeht occasion
Westminster, in opposition to a ntatt \Om was not untried.
He was a distinguialied officers almost the right hand of the
Peninsular war—a man eminent .
fqr hi! Niblig servioes, for the moderation of his opinion 3, and
the groat sutvity of demeanour.—(Cheers.) What de - ciston did her Majesty's Government come to between two
such candidates? I blush to state it. An officer high in
her Mkjesty'a aerviee, no less a person than this Comptroller
of the Howehold, a person who, on the accession of the new
Sovereign has the power of appointing the trAdesmen to
supply the Royal Household in the metropolis, and, there-
fore, possesses extraordin&nn intittence ever the constituency
of Weetrnirestare wee, with the full consent of Governments
141N:tinted Chairman of the Committee of Messrs. Leaeler and
Evarts, in opposition to Sir George lineray.--(Cries of
" Shame.") I myself was present Ls the House of Com-
mens when Mr. Itoehua, the paid agent of the colonists,
bld Lord Julia iieasell that if he persisted in his resolutieria
rp QA,tdians would resist them by force. I heard him make
that declaration in June last. It tern-,tias to be seen what
steps the Government took in (=sequence of that solemn de-
claration from an accredited quarter. I know not whet
Ministers have done ; I know not whit they have nfitleoted
to do. In the meantime, Lord Palmerston is eninslng himself
on the North coast of Spain by prosecntin, his experiment of
settling a war of succession by a handful of Marines. I, to-
gether with my (lelleague•Lerd Stanley (whe was Colo..iai
S•eretary whilvat I was at the Admirulty), had sornethiaz to
do with this Colonial question. I haepened to 'lit) present at
an interview between Lord Stanley and M. Moral, who was
sent as a Delegate to this eeeetry from the revolutionary party
in Canada, This Gentleman, in answer to a question put by
Lord ,s 4 tarsier, fraalsly stated thet ualess the British Govern-
ment made the Second Chamber elective, and the Executive
Government removable, by the votes et the two Assemblies,
al hopes of riecommedatitte were out ef the question. By rt
ill-advised act of eontidenec for which I an responsible, Lorad
cesey'a Government, in 1831, made a great concession to the
popular perty in Canada. Up to thet period the revenues of
the Crown had been retained hy the Crown, and were avail,
able for the Civil G.,enentnent. In that year, however, Lord
Grey's QC+76rixrnont, relying on the solemn assurenoe of the Re_
presentative Assembly that it' the power of acting the salaries an-
nually was conceded to them, they would mane ample provi.
stop by a Civil Isiat fa the maintenance of the British entho-
ritiel iA the colonies, in an ill-advised hour yielded up the
hereditary revenues, and up to 183-i the LegialaCve Assembly
never fulfilled the condition wet which the surrender was
made. In 1834, after the luteruiew with the Canadian dole.
(tate, Lord Stanley, with that decision for which he is roma, k-
able, 00 his own responsibility introduced an Aet fur repealing
the Act of 1831, by whist) the steronder of the revenues of the
Crown w" made. This hiq in the end of April or beginning
or May, 1834. Lord Staaley and I left office on the last day
of Mat*, and from that time to this no effort has been made
by the Government to retrieve the fatal error which, from
overweening eoufidenee, we eumnti.ted. All that Minis:crs
have done with respect to Canada since Lord Stanley and
I retitted ofilee is exactly coincident with the pulley they
Rase pursued towards Ireland. The Pates, indeed, are re-
markably similar. Mr. Warburton said the other day that
the Loyalists are a small minority, and, therefore, ho was
for separating the colony from the mother country; just
as it is said that the Pretestants, being a small minority in
Ireland, their property must be confiscated by the appropria-
tion elnuae. This is the laneuage of Whigs, Radicals, Papists,
and Infidels through every part of Englard. Can we wonder
that the Canadians should follow the example which is set them
nearer home? The mention of the Ballot reseals to my recol-
isctien something which Lord Durham said en that subject
before he wont on his cinbessy to Russia. It is hot fur me
to observe upon the discretion of others, but I was struck with
nut
h
reading in the newspspers a speech delivered by Lord Durham
at a public meeting at Gateshead,in
which let. gave an account
I%etS)llbr, iiti to m, of the manner which the first draft of the Reform Bill was
framed. I think he &tL,tNI that the tank of preparing that
mea.
sure wa3 ('h
,na'::dtotoLlo.rrd J. Russsell
rd
think a 4urilibC
e entrusted
of tu
v leiill Cabinet
k Lord Durham carried his revelations eo further. When
Lord John Russell was a candidate for Stroud, where he car-
ried his election by concealing his sentiments on the subject
of the Ballot, while I lost mine in East Curnberlaed, by
cwning my opposHoti to it, he carried the Cabinet reve-
lations a little further. He. stated that in the first draft
of the Rrfortu Bill, to which I was a party with him.
d ti)latl
i 21101 n.
ot suffragecotti
t
self and the other two Noble Lords I have named, Vote by
Ballot was submitted to the Cabinet, together with a pro-
p alsiti(n forconstitute myself i
aa
1 ouLdgei ohfavtehetdzatideys•
of others, I have a conscientious opinion as to what is my
can duty. My Royal Master, who alone could dispense
with the solemn oath which I tool not to reveal his so
cret Councils is in the grave, I had dot his permissiou to
make any revelation on the subject, and, therefore, I w ill
not do so ; but when either Lord Durham or Lord J. Russell
nett speak on the subject, as their notions of after-dinner
propriety seem to differ from mine, I call on them to say who
proposed the inssrtion of the Vote by Ballot in the draft of the
Bill, who resisted it, who over-ruled it ie the sub-committee,
end ia the Cabinet, when the whole meter came to be dis-
cussed ? In the absence of Cabinet revelations, however, I
may rernied you that there was a man in that Cabinet whose
boast it was that lie had produced before Parliament a ma-
thematical demonstratiou of this dilemma, that the Belot was
either inefficacious or would ieyelve the country in one univer-
sal lie,
elnnot ha denied, at any rate, that Lord Grey's
Cabinet Innught forward the Reform Bill without introducints
in it the Ballot. Before the Reform Bill was introduced
Lord Althorp declared his conscientious opinion that it was
necessary to ietroduce the Ballot. After the carrying of that
great measure. of which I am delighted to hear my Hon.
Friend in the Chair speak in such moderate and reasonable
terms (which he was justified in using. considering the doubt.
ful nature of the experiment, and ahat its full effect had not yet
been ascertained)—after the carrying of that measure, Air.
Grote made a motion in favour of the BeFot in 1833, and Lord
Althorp, who was in favour of the Ballot before the Bill was
passed, said at once that, having obtained the assent of many
persons who were adverse to the measure, fin the ground that
It was a A
-sal settlement of the question, he would then and
thenceforth vote against the Ballot.—(Cheers.) Now, at
the eleventh hour, Lord John Russell has come forward, and
stated that, lot others do what they may, his sense of duty will
never permit him to consent to the ballot, houscheld suffrage,
or triennial Pseliateents. This is what I have always said
epon this subject. I never contended that the Reform Act
aria to be unalterable, like the laws o: the Medes and Persians,
but I have said, and do say, that let who will propose the vote
by ballot, extension of the suffrage, ant trienl-dal Parlia-
ments, there are thirteen men in brigland who are not at
4141 q to support those-propositions, and those are the thirteen