The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-28 00:00:00

VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, being called upon by the Speaker,
then rose, and said,—Sir, I shall proceed without a word
of needless apology, or elaborate preface, to address my-
self to the subject of the motion of which I have given
notice for this evening. Sir, when on Thursday last the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
intimated that it was his intention to proceed with the
business of the Government entertained a strong im-
pression that after the defeats to which the Government
had been subject, defeats as I think indicative of the
withdrawal of the confidence of this House,
indicative of the inutility of their party to
give effect to measures which they deemed important for
the public welfare—l did feel after that notice, unac-
companied by the slightest expression of the ge-
neral views of the Government, that it was im-
possible for me to acquiesce in the propriety
of that course, without taking some step, which should
bring to issue the question, whether the Government
did or did not possess the confidence of the House of
Commons. Sir, I infinitely preferred to bring this ques-
tion to an issue in the most direct and manly manner,
—(Cheers)—by a vote on which the sense of the House
could be taken. I might have resorted to other proceed-
ings—l might have obstructed the course of Government
measures of great importance to the commerce and indus-
try of this country. I mighthave thwarted the Government
with obstructions to the grants of supply—l might have
taken the course of proposing merely the postponement
of some important bills, and thus in an indirect manner
have tested the opinion of the House, but I thought
it infinitely better on the first day, on whichithe forms of
the House permitted, in this direct manner to bring under
the consideration of the House of Commons, whether or
not it gives to the present Government its confidence.
Sir, the resolution which I mean to propose, affirms two
propositions. The first is, " That her Majesty's Minis-
ters do not sufficiently possess the confidence of the
House of Commons to enable them to carry through the
House measures which they deem of essential im-
portance to the public welfare." The second is,
" That their continuance in office under such cir-
cumstances is at variance with the spirit of
the Constitution."—(Loud Cheers.) Sir, my duty is
to establish these two propositions; and if I do ,establish
them, I will have a fair right to claim the assent of the
House to my resolutions. My first proposition is—
That her Majesty's Ministers do not possess the con-
fidence of the House of Commons. Sir, is it
necessary for me to enter into details ?—(Loud cheers.)
Will any man affirm, after the experience, not of
one or two nights, but after long and continued
experience—will any man affirm that her Majesty's
Ministers do possess that confidence of the House
of Commons which enables them to carry
through those measures which they deem essential for
the public welfare ? I am not speaking of occasional
defeats, of casual obstructions to the public business. I
speak of the general course which the Government
have been obliged to take. I speak of occasions on which
measures had been postponed almost without excuse.
I speak of occasions when the measures of Government
had been modified in deference to the wishes of those
who opposed them. I am speaking of their failure to
carry into effect those measures which they
deemed it essential to recommend to this House.
Sir, I am not speaking of one or two failures. I
am not speaking of obstructions offered to a Government
on its first formation.—(Cheers.) I am drawing my in-
ferences from the general events which have of late
taken place—from their success in respect of legislation,
and the degree of support they meet with from the House
of Commons. Sir, I am speaking immediately in refe-
rence to the defeats they met with lately, and more espe-
cially that one which put a stop. to their finan-
cial administration, which following other de-
feats which they have recently sustained induce me
now to come forward. Sir, I say that those repeated de-
feats afford decisive proof that the first proposition is
true—that the Government does not possess the confi-
dence of the House of Commons in such a degree as to
enable them to give effect to measures which they deem
essential to the welfare of the country. if. that
proposition be true, then I say that their
continuance in office is at variance with the principles and
spirit of the Constitution.—(Cheers.) I presume I shall
hardly be called upon to define what I mean by the spirit
of the Constitution. I do not speak of those theories which
refer to some combination of monarchy, of aristocracy,
and of democracy, each armed with offensive and defen-
sive instruments to keep each other in check. Sir, I
speak of that system of Parliamentary Government which
has prevailed since the accession of the House of Ha-
nover—(Loud cheers)—that the Ministers of the Crown
shall have the confidence of the House of Commons. Sir,
I speak of that sentiment which has prevailed during
the whole of that period—in accordance with the just
expression made use of by the Noble Lord whom
I am glad to see opposite (Lord John Rus-
sell) in his able and dispassionate view of the
British Constitution—" That the centre of gravity of
the state is placed in the House of Commons."—(Cheers.)
When I use the term Constitution I speak of that system
of government which has maintained equilibrium be-
tween monarchy and democracy; of that system of go-
vernment which has harmonised the actions of those
apparently conflicting elements—of that system of go-
vernment which by the constant, unseen, and almost
unfelt interposition of slight checks has prevented
the necessity of securing to the use of ex-
treme instruments and the collision of antagonist
powers. That is the spirit of the Constitution of which I
speak—that is the spirit of the Constitution which ap-
pears to me violated by the continuance in office of Mi-
nisters who have not the confidence of the House of
Commons.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I say that my impressions
on that, subject are confirmed by reference to all historical
precedent having analogy to this House—that they are
confirmed by the authority of all eminent writers and
all statesmen of the first practical experience in the ad-
ministration of affairs. They have also a melancholy
confirmation from the actual experience of the positive
evils which arise when another system of Goverment is
substituted for that which has hitherto prevailed.
They are confirmed, I say, by the course of historical
precedents. I look to the period which all writers have
stated as the period from which we may date this neces-
sary system of Parliamentary control—from the period of
the accession of the House of Hanover, and I say, recurring
to the history of administrations, you will find invariably,
with scarce an exception, that the Minister, whatever
may have been his power, however confirmed his in-
fluence, however long the duration of his au-
thority,—you will find that the Minister, when de-
prived of the confidence of the House of Commons,
has: thought it incumbent on him to do ho-
mage to the principles of representative Government,
advocated by his expulsion as Minister of the Crown. I
begin with Sir Robert Walpole. He held office for the
long period of twenty-five years. If I mistake not, he
was appointed in the year 1715, and the termination of
his power took place about 100 years from the period at
which I am speaking, 1741. Sir Robert Walpole
was dispossessed of power under these circumstances. A
motion was made by Mr. Pulteney, to the effect that the
Ministry had lost the confidence of the House of Com-
mons. That motion was negatived in favour of the Mi-
nister by a majority of 3, Walpole being in a minority in
the Chippenham Election—the determination of elections
chiefly influenced the party spirit of the time, and it was
thought a convenient mode of testing the strength of a
Ministry—notwithstanding that slight majority which he
had on the question of confidence. After twenty-five
years of authority, Sir Robert Walpole relinquished office.
In 1782 Lord North yielded to the same influence. In
the year 1782 two motions were made, the one I think
by Sir George Rouse, and the other by Lord George
Cavendish; the one motion declared it impossible for the
House of Commons to place any confidence in the Go-
vernment, the other was couched in terms nearly similar
to the present. The one motion was negatived
by a majority of nine, the other by a majority of ten, but
Lord North felt it to be his duty, notwithstanding this
majority, to yield to the necessity implied by the with-
drawing of the confidence of the House of Commons, and
his authority then came to a close. In the year 1804
Lord Sidmouth, having had frequent majorities to a great
extent, but that majority being reduced to 37, Lord
Sid-
mouth thought it his duty to retire, and considered the
majority of 37 to be indicative of the withdrawal of the
confidence of the House of Commons. In 1812,
on the first formation of Lord Liverpool's Ad-
ministration, on the motion of my Noble
Friend, Lord Wharncliffe, then Mr. Stuart Wortley, a
resolution was come to by the House of Commons that a
more extensive Administration should be formed, that
majority was decisive. With respect to the fate of the
Administration of Lord Liverpool, and that Noble Earl
resigned his trust into the hands of his Sovereign. An attempt
was made to form another Administration ; but that
proving ineffective, the Administration of Lord Liverpool

was placed again in power. I think the next Adminis-
tration which yielded to the influence of public opinion,
expressed by the House of Commons, was the
Administration presided over by my Noble Friend, the
Duke of Wellington in 1830. On the meeting of Par-
liament, on the question whether or no the Civil List
should be referred to a Committee of the House of Com-
mons, we were defeated by the combination of par-
ties entertaining opposite opinions, and the House of
Commons resolved by a majority of 39 to refer the
consideration of the Civil List to a Committee of the
House of Commons. I felt that that majority was sig-
nificant that we had not the confidence of the House of
Commons. We felt it to be our duty to retire, but I
think the Right Honourable Gentleman will recollect
that his opinion anticipated ours.—(Hear, hear.)
I do recollect that immediately after that motion the
Right Hon. Gentleman, entertaining, I think, great and
rational opinions—opinions which were in conformity with
the opinions of many others, did upon that occasion,chrectly
after the division, inquire from me, whether, after such
an expression of the opinion of the House, it was the
intention of Ministers to retain their places, and to carry
on the Government of the country ?—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. HOBHOUSE rose amidst loud cries of " Order,
order." We understood the Right Hon. Gentleman to
say that since then he had made an apology to the
House, for putting what he thought a very improper
question.—(Great laughter and cheering.)
Sir R. PEEL—Sir, at the time I certainly did not
complain of any want of courtesy on the part of the
Right Honourable Gentleman, nor did I suppose that it
was done in any hostile manner ; and if I had enter-
tained any such opinion, I should not have referred to it
at this time.—(Hear.) I did not entertain the opinion
that there was anything eircourteous or liable on the ques-
tion of the Rigfit Hon. Gentleman ; but be that as
it may, the Right Hon. Gentleman's opinion was confirmed
by that of the House of Commons. It was not only
the opinion of the House of Commons, but Lord
Brougham in vain attempted to appease the impatience
of the House of Commons on that day. My own opinion
was so strong upon the matter, that the very
next day I signified my intention to the
Crown to retire from its service, and that very night,
after the Right Honourable Gentleman had put
the question, which never excited an angry feel-
ing in my mind, Lord Brougham said to the House
of Commons, " Surely after what has taken place it will
be better to permit the Ministers of the Crown
to have time for consideration ?" When the proposal
was made to appoint the Committee on the Civil List
on the instant, Lord Brougham said. " Wait till to-mor-
row—don't do it now— don't appoint this hostile
Committee"—but Lord Brougham's advice was
over-ruled, and such was the impatience of the,
House of Commons to proceed to some decisive
act, which would imply the downfal of the Government,
on that very night the Committee on the Civil List was
appointed—on the very night on which we were left in
the minority. The next Ministry, which also yielded'
to public opinion, as expressed in the House of Com-
mons, was that over which I myself presided for a short
time in the year 1834. I did carry on for some time an
unequal contest against the powers leagued against me ;
but I must say that the first time there was a posi-
tive obstruction to any acts of legislation, at
that first time I felt it to be my duty to retire ;
and I would beg to remind the Noble Lord that on that
occasion, at a much earlier period, he implied his
opinion that I, by holding power, was acting in
a manner ;injurious to the public interest, by not
having the confidence of the House of Com-
mons. So far back as the 2d of March, the
Noble Lord had observed, that no Ministry had ever
stood before, with respect to the House of Commons, in
so extraordinary a position ; and the Noble Lord ob-
serving the evil influence which my attempt was pro-
ducing on public affairs, said that he was
daily leaning more and more to the opinion
that we ought to revert as speedily as possible to the old
practice of the Constitution—(Loud Opposition cheers)—
and that while persons exercised the powers of the Crown
in whom the House of Commons reposed no confidence,
they imposed the necessity of making motions most in-
convenient and perhaps unconstitutional, such as that
which had been made for the removal of a Noble Friend
of mine who had been appointed to the Rus-
sian Embassy. The Noble Lord said to us, You
i
by remaining n:,power are alone responsible for any de-
lays or obstructions, or for any offence to which by your
acts the Crown is exposed, and the Noble Lord
concluded by stating his opinion that we ought
to revert to the old practice of the Constitu-
tion—that the Ministers of the Crown ought to
possess the confidence of the House of Commons.—
(Loud cheers) And to show how little the Right Hon.
Gentleman thought that he had given him personal of-
fence by the remark which he 'had made in 1830,
the Right Hon. Gentleman in 1835 shared the opinion
of the Noble Lord, and in 1835 told me that the fault
did not rest with the Opposition but with myself, and
that the course I was pursuing would be the fruitful
source of more evils, for that nothing could be
a more fruitful source of evil than for the Minister of
the Crown to endeavour to govern by a minority
of the House of Commons—(Loud Opposition
cheers)—and Sir, being fully sensible of the diffi-
culties of my position, as soon as the Noble Lord had
carried a resolution implying that no adjustment of the
tithe question would be satisfactory, except an adjust-
ment consonant with the views of the Noble Lord, as in-
dicated in the resolution, I did not wnit for the further
progress of the Bill, but considering that determination as
an indication that I did not possess the confidence of the
House of Commons—seeing in it an obstruction to an
important measure, I resigned office.—(Hear, hear, and
cheers.) I did not do so when I was defeated on
the question of the election of the Speaker ; I did not
do so when I was defeated on the Address, but the mo-
ment I found the progress of legislation was interrupted
that moment I resigned.—(Cheers.) In speaking of
Administrations which have yielded to the authority of
the House of Commons, I have omitted to mention a case
in which the precedent appears at first sight to be somewhat
different ; I mean in 1780, when Mr. Pitt, notwihstanding
the adverse votes of the House of Commons, remained in
office, and continued to hold office, until he could take
the opinion of the people.—(Loud cheers from the Minis-
terial benches.) But I contend, Sir, that the circumstances
of that case are in no degree analogous to the present.
The circumstances of the contest between Mr. Pitt and
Mr. Fox in 1783 were these. On the 17th December,
1783, the Bill which had been brought in by Mr. Fox
for the regulation and management of the affairs of India,
was rejected in the House of Commons. On the 17th
December, on the very same day, the House of Com-
mons resolved to go into a Committee of the whole House
on the state of the nation on the Monday following. On
the 19th of December the Government of Mr. Fox and
Lord North was dissolved, and on the 19th December Mr.
Pitt was appointed Minister. But before Mr. Pitt could
take his place as Minister in the House of Commons, an
address to the Crown was moved not to dissolve Parlia-
ment. At the outset of the Government before even
there was time for the re-election of Mr. Pitt, his seat
being vacated by the acceptance of office, an address
to the Crown was moved not to dissolve Parliament,
and his Majesty was earnestly entreated to hearken to
the advice of his faithful Commons, and not to the
secret advices of particular persons who may
have private interests of their own separate from
the true interest of his Majesty and his
people.—(Hear, hear.) An adjournment of Parliament
took place. Parliament re-assembled on the 12th of Ja-
nuary, 1784, and before any one act of the Government
could be submitted to the consideration of the House of
Commons. On the very day on which Mr. Pitt
appeared in the House of Commons as Minister
of the Crown—on the very first day, a resolution of the
House was come to, " That in the present state of affairs,
it is peculiarly necessary that there should be an admin-
tration which has the confidence of this House and
of the country." On the 16th of January, four
days after the meeting of Parliament, it waS
moved by Lord Charles Spencer " That the appoint-
ment of his Majesty's present Ministers was accompanied
by circumstances new and extraordinary, and such as do
not conciliate and engage the confidence of this House,
and that the continuance of the present Mi-
nisters in trusts of the highest importance
is contrary to constitutional principles, and injurious to
the interest of his Majesty and his people;" consequently
the objection to the continuance of Mr. Pitt was not
that the confidence of the House of Commons was
withheld from the measures which he proposed.
There were surmises—no ; allegations, that Mr.
Pitt owed his power to the exercise of undue influ •
ence, that the King's name had been made use of
for the purpose of—(The remainder of the sentence was
lost in loud cheers.) The objection, therefore, was
taken at the outset to the Administration of Mr.
Pitt. Before Mr. Pitt could take his seat, hostile re-
solutions were come to; and before he could bring forward
any one act of Government upon which the sense of the
House of Commons could be taken, resolutions were
affirmed implying objections not to the acts of that Go-
vernment, but to the principle upon which it was consti-
tuted.—(Hear, hear.) And the battle which Mr. Pitt
was then fighting was not in opposition to the principle
that a Minister ought to have the confidence of
the House of Commons, for the purpose of carrying on
the Government. But Mr. Pitt contended that Mr. Fox,
who had a majority in the House of Commons, was at-
tempting to control the constitutional prerogative
of the Crown, and without reference to
attempts at legislation—without reference to pub-
lic acts of the Government, was denouncing that
administration, and implying before hand the want of
confidence in it. It is true that there were in that case
repeated resolutions implying a want of confidence on the
part of the House ofCommons. But I say the circumstances
of that case are not analogous, that they did not imply a
a want of confidence on account of the Acts proposed by
that Government, but on account of the suspicion that
it owed its origin to unconstitutional motives, and that it
was the duty of the House of Commons from the first to
dissent from and to reprobate its appointment.—
(Hear, hear.) It was upon that principle that
the great contest took place in the years 1783 and 1784,
which led to the dissolution of that Parliament, and to
the election of a new one. But is this a case at all
analogous to that ?—(Hear, hear.) AM I ob-
structing the course of a Government at its
first formation ? Am I depriving it of an opportunity
of submitting its measures to the consideration of the
House ? Am I not arguing, " You have had the oppor-
tunity, in repeated sessions, of laying before the House
of Commons the measures you deem essential to the
public good. They have, in some cases, been greatly
altered by the prevailing influence of your opponents;
they have in others completely failed, meeting with
little support either in their principles or details; and
the long continued experience of your weakness is
the foundation of the resolution which I propose.—
(Cheers.) Sir, I say, then that constitutional precedent,
that the records of history, with one exception, that
of 1783, which is not analogous to this, support
my position that Ministers not possessing the confidence
of the House of Commons have felt it their duty to relin-
quish office. I say again that the authority of pub-
lic men and public writers comes m aid of con-