The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-29 00:00:00

MORN IN G
They then had the plan of a normal school, from which all
religious instruction was to be excluded. They (the Oppo-i-
-tion) fought that question ; they fought it successfully, and
the scheme was abandoned.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.)
He 'now came to Ireland. The Noble Lord had
rejoiced excessively in his administration of the affairs
of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) He (Sir James ttraharn)
had heard the Noble Lord make a speech with more than his
usual power, because it appeared to him to be made with more
than ordinary sincerity, on the subject of Irish railroads. He
appeared to think that a grant of public money for Irish rail-
roads would be conducive in the highest degree to the prosperity
of Ireland. The Noble Lord took the sense of the House, and
his propr;sal was supported by a majority ; but there were indi-
cations of opposition from that side of the House, and such was
the awe in which the Noble Lord stood of any opposition from
that side of the House, that from that day to this they had
heard no more of Irish railways.---( Cheers.) The Hon. Mem-
ber for Bridport and himself agreed in the opinion that the great
defect in the English registration was the want of an ap-
pelate tribunal. For three years her Majesty's Government
had been trying to cb al with the question; Bills had been laid
upon the table of the House, they went as far as the second
reading, but they never proceeded further, because they
contained a principle to which they (the Opposition )
entertained an insuperable objection, namely,' that the
appointment of an appellant tribunal should be entrusted to
the Speaker of the House for the time being.—( Hear. )
Such was the weakness of Government, such its imbe-
cility, such its want of power, that not even this question
could they bring to a decision. There were several minor
questions which were not unimportant. Some Bills were in-
troduced by Lord Advocate Al urray, three years ago; one
upon the important subject of fictitious votes. In 1838 it was
read a second time ; in 1839 and 1840 it was also read a
second time.—(hear.) But what had become of these
13,114 ? Why, they had all gone to the tomb
of the Capulets—(Great laughter)—where the Noble Lord said
alt that imposture of the anti-slavery cry had gone too. He
would only observe with respect to tile Irish Registration Bill
and its 5/. franchise, that this Government, possessing the con-
fidence of the country and of Parliament, had thought fit at
the private suggestion of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury to
raise the franchise from 5/. to 81. His Right Hon. Friend
(Sir R. Peel) reminded him of another proof of their weakness.
When ho (Sir J. Graham) was in Lord Grey's Govern-
ment, he was authorised by that Government to prepare
a Bill for the Regulation of the Ecclesiastical
tribunal of this country, in conformity with the Report of the
Ecclesiastical Commission. In 1834 that Commission had
proceeded a considerable length towards maturity. In 1835
his Right lion. Friend, then in office, having ascertained that
he had been authorised to prepare such a Bill, communi-
cated with hint upon the subject. He informed his Right
lion. Friend of what had passed, and he happened to know
that in 1835 he had a treasure ready to present, when he quitted,
office. Since then six years had elapsed, and her Ma-
jesty's Ministers had never attempted to deal with the
subject, had not introduced any measure.—(" Hear, hear,"
from Lord J. Russell.) Did the Noble Lord mean to say that
it had been presented? He never saw it.—(" Yes," from
Lord John Russell.) Oh, it had been presented? What had
become of it? It had shared the fate of the Bills for Scot-
land, gone to the tomb of the Capuletz.—( A laugh.) This
was an additional proof that her Majesty's Government
(lid not sufficiently possess the confidence of that House to
carry the measures which they thought necessary.—( Cheers. )
He would now comment on a measure which afforded a test of
the legislative skill of her Majesty's Government.—(Cheers.)
He alluded to the question of the Poor-laws. He (Sir J. G.)
was a party to the introduction of that measure, and he at-
tached great weight to it, because he thought it a measure of
primary importance. It would be remembered that a very
important part of the original enactment was the duration of
the Commission. The term of its duration was five years. He
(Sir J. Graham) thought it expired abont 1838, but the Noble
Lord feeling the difficulty of the subject, asked for a renewal of
the measure for a year. That was granted, and at the expira-
tion of that time a similar renewal was asked for, and granted
also. At the commencement of the present session, after
nearly three years of deliberation, the Noble Lord the Secretary
for the Colonies brought in the Bill which he held in his hand,
as the fruit of his deliberation. Now, if ever there was a
measure that required caution in its introduction, and care in
its preparation, that was the measure ; and, in ordinary pru-
dence, the principle which should have guided the formation
of such a measure should have been to have introduced the
minimum of change in such regulations as could be allowed.
Was that the course pursued by the present Government? No.
The converse of that was adopted. It seemed to him that the
measure had been framed upon the principle of asking for more
than Parliament would grant, in order to obtain as much as
possible; and every mitigating regulation which the Commis-
sioners advised was omitted. Now, in order to show the skill
of her Majesty's Government, he would just advert to
what had taken place when this abortive measure
was brought under the consideration of the House.
The most important provision was with respect to the term of
the duration of the Commission. The Noble Lord in his Bill
proposed to prolong that period for ten years, and on the first
discussion his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth,
having merely intimated that ten years was too long, the Noble
Lord gave way and it was reduced to five. Next came the
clause for issuing general orders. This was resistost, and as
soon as resisted was withdrawn. Then there was the clause giving
the power of dissolving unions. This was objected to, and he
(Sir J. Graham) hand forgotten whether that clause was post-
poned or withdrawn. Then with respect to the removal of
infirm paupers, that clause underwent discussion, and as soon
as it was seen that the feeling of the House was against it,
her Majesty's Government, upon the first discussion relin-
quished it. Then as to the burial of the dead, his Right Hon.
Friend objected to the clause, and it was withdrawn ; and the
same course was pursued with respect to the medical clause.
In short the Bill was so negligent and incautiously
prepared that proposition after proposition was given up,
and at last the Noble Lord had backed out of the measure
altogether on the ground of the present state of affairs, and
given it up altogether.—( Hear, hear.) He must now make a
few observations with respect to the course pursued by the
Noble Lord the Member for Lincolnshire. Ministers had
said that the ground of want of confidence had been narrowed
to the Budget; and' that Noble Lord had voted against the
sugar duties upon that principle. Tho Ministers re-
tain their offices merely, and for the purpose of ad-
vancing the question of the repeal of the Corn-laws— they
intended to dissolve in the hope of doing so. Where then
was the sincerity of men who avowed themselves strict friends
of the agricultural interest, yet would give a vote of confidence to
the present Ministers. Would Lincolnshire understand such
conduct ?—( Cheers)—no, it was acting against common sense,
and the heavy agriculturists of Lincolnshire would not adopt
it. Why, suppose a madman was running about the street
armed, and attacking all whom he saw, what would
be thought of any one who did not rush in and
disarm him—(Laughter)--at all events strip him of all
power to do him harm? Why a policeman would be dis-
charged to-morrow who did not do his duty in that manner. lt
remained to be seen whether an English constituency would
not visit equally suspicious conduct with their condemnation.—
(Cheers.) Some good had already arisen from the discussion.
—(Loud Ministerial cheers.) They now understood much
better the ground upon which matters stood. The Honourable
Member for North Shields said the second proposition was a
true one, supposing an immediate dissolution was intended.
Now, until his Right Hon. Friend gave his notice, could any-
thing be more ambiguous than the conduct of the Government?
They gave notices of motion for distant days, even after their
defeat upon the sugar duties—nay, even last night,
after hearing the speeches of the Cabinet Ministers,
he left the House without being able to tell what
steps the Government intended to take, for one signified re
signation, and another intimated faintly, dissolution—
(Laughter)—and now the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ire-
land said that the Government did not intend to go with the
present Parliament for any lengthened period. Was that
enough to please the Hon. Member for Shields ?—the Govern-
ment did not mean to go on for any extended period. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer, by dealing with the money of
the Savings' Banks, had enough tommet the exigencies of the
country—the Sugar Duties' Bill was far advanced—why, then,
delay a dissolution ?—( Cheers.) But he would ask what se-
ecurity had they that the Government would not go on until
after the new registration? He would ask the Hon. Member
for Shields whether that would be satisfactory? Unless some-
thing more definite was laid before the House, he
claimed the vote of the Honourable Gentleman.—(Cheers.)
It was somewhat extraordinary, that whereas all Ministers
yielded to the express sense of the House of Commons, the
Ministers who offered the most protracted and obdurate resist-
ance were those who had constituted it, as he believed it to
be, the read representative of the feelings of the country. He
thought it a most unfair exercise of the prerogative of the
Crown, slier the signal defeats they had suffered on the Bud-
get, nut to take one or other of the alternatives of immediate
resignation er dissolution. There was nothing to prevent the
(City, rnmcnt brieginss forward that measure at an earlier
period. The deficiency was knoen to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer when Parliament assembled, and he might have
taken the sense of the Home upon big propositions when there
could be no impediment to a dissolution:—(Hear, hear.) He
contended that eltey had exercised the power of the Crown
in a most unconstitutional manner. They had asked for the
Sugar Duties Bill and the remainder of the supplies, while they
called upon the House to discuss the Corn-laws with the terror
of a dissolution before them.--( Hear, hear.) He contended
that any Minister who so conducted himself after a series of
defeats, wounded the honour of the House, impaired its dignity,
and defied its power. It was somewhat extraordinary to see
the Noble Lord shelter himself under the rather inapplicable
precedent of Mr. Pitt. Now he preferred the authority of
Mr. Fox, who had stated that such a proceeding as they now con-
templated was tantamount to declaring themselves independent
of Parliatneta, acid a violation of the privileges of the House.
—( Cheers.) He should vote for the resolution, because he
was :nxious to put on record, in the Journals of Parliament,
the heavy weight of responsibility her Majesty's advisers would
incur, if they counselled dissolution under the, present circum-
stances. The time till the meeting of the new Parliameut was
an interregnum, which should not be unnecessarily pro-
longed. The dissolution should be immediate.—( Cheers. )
He was no great admirer of the skill with which
the Government played the game, although he admitted that
skill with which they shuffled the cards. But although they
could not play theireown game, he did not see why they should
be entitled to tool into their neighbours' hands.—( Cheers and
laughter.) Prorogation was the prerogative of the Crown,
but he contended that a more dangerous, and, he was about to
add, a more revolutionary proceeding than the advice of a dis-
solution could net be conceived by any rational being. The
Government of Lord Grey, in the year 1831, brought forward
the Reform Bill. They carried the second reading of that
Bill by a majority of one. Shortly after, in a matter of very
maker importance they were defeated on a motion of General
Gascoyne. What did they do ? Did they preach dissolution ?
The next morning, without an interval of more than twelve
hours, they advised the Crown to exercise its prerogative, and
instantly Parliament was dissolved. That was the precedent.
—( Hear, hear.) So much for the precedent which the
Noble Lord hail given them. Now he was prompted to an-
other precedent. In the year 1807 Mr. Tierney, when it
was doubtful whether resignation would be the result of the
speech from the Throne, or dissolution, or that the Government
would only be carried on for "some extended period of
tinie"—these were tho words of the Noble Lord (Morpeth )
" the Government does not intend to carry on their adminis-
tration for any extended period"-well, Mr. Tierney, in
1807, in no very ambiguous terms; announced to the House
that a dissolution should immediately ensue. The Noble
Lord had, he was sure, some respect for Mr. Tierney. What
were the observations of Mr. Tiernoy on that occasion ?
He said, " As for a dissolution, I am convinced it cannot be in-
tended, particularly when I see a religious clamour raised be-
cause the malice of the devil has given rise to the cry of r the
Church in danger.' "--(Ministerial cheers.) Did they cheer
that? Did they, believe that the cry of " the Church in
danger" was less exciting than the cry of " Cheap broad ?" It
had been asked where were the signs of agitation. They were
asked from the Treasury Benches what was the harm of it—
what was the nature of it? Now he would tell them what was
the nature of it. In the discussion on the Corn-laws last year
in that House it was hi.; (Sir James Graham's) pain
to hear the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland
declare, that, in his opinion, no man who was not
prepa-ed to alter the Corn-laws as they now ex-
isted could obey the Divine injunction and offer up his
prayer for daily bread. In a passage very brilliant and
very eloquent, and UT no means hasty, or void of consideration,
the Noble Lord the fieereteey for the Colonies, in opening the
question of the Sugar Duties, and announcing the scheme of
Government, declared that in his opinion the present Corn-
laws were at variance with the beneficence of Providence.—
(Ministerial cheers.) He (Sir J. Graham) was aware that
many gentlemen in that House entertained those opinions. He