The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-03 00:00:00

limit, beyond which endurance must fail ; and the consequence
must be the entire destruction of their establishments. He
was not now going to discuss the question of the Corn-laws.
It was suggested to the House as a remedy, and it was well
worth their. consideration. If they looked to some of the
speeches of the late Earl of Liverpool, they would see, how,
after that question had been agitated from time to time, his
candid mind dealt with it ; that he discarded and rejected the
question 'of an alteration in those laws save in the possibility
in case of war or a state of destitution. He (Dr. Lushington)
had ever supported the measure from his earliest days. He
had a firm opinion of its necessity. The people of this country,
too, were now coming to that conclusion, and he believed
when they expressed their opinions, justice, as well necessity
would compel the House to adopt the measure. Above all
things, be would say—let them not throw the question aside—
let them not abandon the labouring population of this country
to utter and entire destitution. The present was, probably,
the last time he should have the honour of addressing that
House, and he was therefore desirous that heshould still be found
to adhere (if any doubt could be entertained of it) to the prin-
ciples which he had ever professed. Avowing himself a party
man, but utterly disavowing any bitterness towards his antago-
nists, he hoped when he quitted that House he should have the
satisfaction of thinking that though he had been opposed to a
large political party he should not have left amongst them a
personal enemy.—( &leers from the Opposition benches.) He
would not trouble the House further. He would conclude by
stating that he still supported, as he ever did, the principles of
civil and religious liberty throughout the world. He believed
that those with whom he acted were disposed to extend those
principles, and he prayed that by their determination they
would advance them.—(Cheers.)
Sir W. FOLLETT said he had no intention of charging his
Right Hon. Friend with inconsistency, because he pave his
vote in favour of those principles to which he was so long at-
tached. He would charge the Right Hon. Gentleman with no
inconsistency, because having voted against the proposition of
her Majesty's Government, and now faithful to his party, he
had stated his intention of giving what was probably his last
vote in favour of that party to which he had always adhered.
Nor would be (Sir W. Follett) stop to inquire whether the
Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman was right in saving that
neither he nor the Government had swerved; he did not pro-
fess to enter into that discussion with the Right Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, but he might express his surprise when he
(Dr. Lushington) appealed to the Hon. Member for Middlesex,
that he did not think it right to appeal also to the Noble Earl
whom he mentioned as the head of the party in the other House,
—to Earl Grey. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
not appealed to Earl Grey, but he appealed to those who acted
with that Noble Earl. But he (Sir W. Follett) asked why it
was that that Noble Earl, instead of being now a supporter of
her Majesty's Ministers did, they bad reason to believe, eon-
demn the poley of Ministers. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had said that the question between them was, that the Go-
vernment, after having sustained defeats in that House, were
acting unconstitutionally in still retaining office. He (Sir W.
Follett) did not see that such was unconstitutional, but he said
that was not the case leetweenthem. The present resolution was
brought forward not lb condemn an appeal to the people, but to
condemn a continuance in office, without an appeal to the people,
of Ministers who had not had for wily Sessions sufficient con-
fidence in that House to enable them to carry their measures.
When they spoke of dissolution and an appeal to the people,
under what circumstances was it announced ? The Noble Lord
the Secretary for Ireland had stated on the first or second night
of the debate, that the Government, at no distant period, in-
tended to dissolve—that they had advised the Sovereign to that
effect, and that the Sovereign acquiesced therein. But he
(Sir Wm. Follett) asked why did they not at once dissolve?
They said they did not mean to dissolve till they had had a
discussion on the subject of the Corn-laws.—( Hear.) Yes, that
subject on which of all others the Right Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had said it was most necessary to come to a calm,
full, and dispassionate consideration. The language of Mi-
nisters was that they meant to dissolve Parliament, but before
doing so they meant to ask the concurrence of the House, or
rather to propose to it, an alteration in the Corn-laws, which
most deeply affected the passions of the people, and the com-
merce and manufactures of the country ; yes, they meant to
propose the question to the House, but they did not mean to
ask them to concur in it. Why was it, he would ask, that they
proposed this measure, and at the same time announced the
intention of dissolving, if they meant the House to concur in it?
Why else did they propose it save in the hope that
something might take place in the course of the
debate which could be made use of upon the passions of the
people at the forthcoming struggle. 'the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Secretary at War had told them plainly and distinctly
that they had never any expectation of carrying the measure.
If they looked to the course taken by the Noble Lord the
Secretary for the Colonies with respect to another Bill, he
would ask dil not the conduct of the Covet nment show the
object eith which they held out their threat of dissolution?
'1 he Noble Lord said he would not bring forward in this Ses-
sion the Bill for continuing the Peorslaw. Why not ? The
Government had every reason to believe that Bill would meet
with the concurrence of the House, that that Bill might be
Carried into a law ; but the Noble Lord refused to bring for-
ward that Bill because it was one deeply affecting the passions
of the people, and he thought he should not get a full and calm
discussion on it. But it was quite evident that the discussion
on the Poor-law Amendment Bill was put off, and the discus-
sion on the Corn-law brought forward, because the discussion
on the one measure might prove injurious to the Government,
and the discussion on the other might assist theit interests ;
and that they hoped the people would have strength enough to
resist the overbearing power of the aristocracy.—(Cheers.)
Well, Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered him, but would the
Right Hon. Secretary at War say that he thought it consistent
with his duty as a Cabinet Minister not to smooth down the
jealousies between the different classes, but to attempt to aggra-
vate them, to inflame their passions and prejudices. to excite
ono class of society against another.—(Cheers.) He thought
the Right Hon. geet!onien would have remembered what the
Noble Lord (J. Russell) had said of that very agitation in
hell—that it stirred society to its foundations, and arrayed one
pips ageioet ?knothole man against man, with the spirit of
deepest hostility.—( Cheers.) Yet it was that sprit that a
MesnLer of the Cabinet had thpught it right to state a wish to
see revived.—( Cheers. ) Ile (Sir W. Follett) believed the
Right Hon. Gentleman was much mistaken, and that the
people of this country would not again be deluded
itilo the eehibition of that spirit.—( Cheers. ) He thought the
people would net again he pleesed to raise one class against an-
other, for the injury of all, to keep her Majesty's Ministers in
tAcp, py to iplieve them from their difficulties.—( Cheers. )
He thought the government had greatly overrated their
power of agitating the people.—( Cheers- ) Still, when he con-
sidered the mode in which this dissolution was announced, he
would take the lesson as it was intended, and as the House
would have to deeide upon it, and that was, whether her Ma-
jesty's Minietees hest Of had Pot !Adeptly the confidence of
that House, and yi hethgr they were jtoified iij retaining
AL
nllls# without that confidence His Bight lieeoureble and
Learned Friend had treated this as it question of dissolution.
He (Sir Williant Follett) 04410 OW those who sup-
ported the resolution were bound to make out their pro-
petitions. The Right Honourable President of the Board
of Coeteol devised the first proposition ; but he (Sir W. Fol-
lett) said that it was peefeetty clear, from the Depth of May,
1S:19, when her Majesty?s Mipisters themselves deeleeecl they
had not sufficient confidence to carry on tie Government—he
said the; from OW time they had not peen able to carry
through Parliament any iwitstog
withoet the cenceeiree Of
his Bight Hee, Friend (Sir 4. pelf and tllp party opposed
to thein—(Cheers)—end the Secretary at War conceded
ti is. but said that, in a constitutional point of view, there was
nothjeg ie She jpg mstances under which they retained office
contrary to histerical irpeedftpt amtr kipirit of t 4 .19:n0-
tution. That he (Sir W. Follett boldly denied-(Loud
c
heers)—and he said that the Right on. Gentleman ought not
to have excluded from his arguments and illustrations one
said that all the
essential ingredient which had belonged to the Constitution
ehier the evession 8f or Wiese p,c heye ; eat the
Rntie n Geveenmeet and the Opposition to -Govern-
rttpt4 was conducted by party combinations in Parliament. He
apply
to opwohillisd beirr
folliPnrd ieeeirlien the proposition of his Rightts brought forward did not
Hon. Friend. it wis wher they found thg contineed inabi-
lity of the Government to carry any measure withOia the suf-
ferance (Attie party in opposition—(Cheers)—it was that situ-
ation in which the present Government was placed, and it was
piOr}heir
continuance in office. undfi• Oiepißumr?s, which,
thft;!iPtairfeft W 2 to istorical precedent and
e spirit of the* Cheelra. ) 'The measures which
had been mentioned by the President of the Board of Control,
as indication of the confidence reposed by the House in the
present Government, had been already disposed of, but there
was one which he had mentioned, to which he (Sir W.
Follett) must allude, for amending the registration of voters
in Ireland. Was it possible that qv tense seho had any know-
ledge o
stronger 'proof of the
that Bill, should' not perceive that they Could not
haye a
weakness of the present Govern-
ment, and the want Of cenfidence in that House ? On the
preposition for altering the elective franchise, the House had
two diriaioes, on one of .whieh
the Government were in a
gminorityof .11, apd on the otherin a minority Of 21, and yet this
ilt was inimediatelv plowed by this budget, and py the propo-
s,.i.isio44ll.6 CF' nee'llp,'r of the gOrtiner,riopeSitionq which the