The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1841.

hear.) It appeared that it was not only net dist tspectful, but
that it was due to the Crown, particularly at that moment,
that they should give her Majesty an intimation of what they
believed to be the wishes of the country, in order that
she might be relieved from all uncertainty upon the subject.
The course he was about to recommend was also conformable

to the usual practice of the House ;and if he wanted any jus-
tification upon that point, he might refer to a precedent very
much in point. He might refer to the proceedings in the
year 1835, when his predecessor in the representation which
gave him his present seat in that House (Lord Morpeth, we
believe), took the same course as that which he presumed to
suggest to the House upon that occasion. His predecessor had
undertaken the duty, under circumstances in which,perhapa,,the
justification was not quite so strong as it was at present, be-
cans:. he was then told that no fault whatever was found with
_ _

the Speech on the Address proposed by her Majesty's Govern-
ment • but still it was thought fit that an amendment should
be made upon the occasion. If, then, that course had been
taken when the Address was thought unobjectionable, he had
still a better right than his predecessor to ask that House to
pursue a similar course ; and with respect to Hon. GAntlemen
posite, and especially her Majesty's Ministers, he should say
that they had no season to complain of the course he pro-
posed; but the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) ought to consi-
der it an act of the most obliging courtesy—(Laughter)—that
he (Mr. Wertley) should propose an amendment to the Address.
In the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell's) recent address to his
constituents, he used these words:—.‘ As soon as the new
Parliament meets, we shall take the first opportunity of ask-

ing.f; a clear and decided judgment on our policy." The
Noble Lord would, therefore, acknowledge that the anticipa-
tion of the call was an act of courtesy.—(Laughter.) He
was justified also by the Noble Lord himself, in asking the
House not to separate, without expressing a strong opinion
upon a point which they had a right to consider in
the first instance,—whether her Majesty's Ministers were
entitled, in the actual state of the representation of this coun-
try, to dictate the Address which should be presented to the
Queen?—( Much cheering from the Tory benches.) He
could not better show the position in which the House stood
with respect to Ministers, than in the words of the Noble

Lord in 1834, during the discussion on the appropriation of
the revenue of the Church of Ireland. The Noble Lord had

said,—" I consider that the Government of this country must
be formed of persons agreeing with the principles of the ma-
jority of the House of Commons ; and I think the House has
a right, if Ministers have not their confidence, to address the
Crown, with the expectation that Ministers would be chosen
who should have their confidence."—( Hear, hear, from Lord
.1. Russell, and much cheering.) The Noble Lord had cheered.
He was glad to perceive that he was able to
concur with the Noble Lord, and he was doing that, which,
he trusted would effectually fulfil the object recommended in
that passage.—( Tory cheers and laughter.) But beyond that
the Noble Lord and he would not concur. Those on the
.

opposite side of the House, and those with whom he had the
honour to act took different views of the manner in which this
night's debate should be conducted. The Gentlemen opposite
said, that the distress of the country was owing to the rejection
of the policy recommended by Ministers. But, althwugh it
might be very expedient aid very politic for Ministers to
identify themselves with cheap bread and free trade, yet in his
mind they had no right to discuss these questions then.—
(Cheers and laughter.) He would not preclude the Hon.
Member for Manchester or .9thers from making speeches on
free trade, but the question before the House was not whether
those subjects were important or not, but whether the persons
who compose her Majesty's Government were those whom
the country would confide in to carry them out.--(Great
cheering.) He had stated his opin,-7on on the questions of corn
and free trade, and he would have an opportunity of doiag so
again—the sooner the better—but the only question now was
whether Ministers had not forfeited the confidence of the
House and the country.—( Renewed cheers from the Opposi-
tion.) They had forfeited it by an oblivion of their
pledges.—(Cheers and "Oh, oh.") They had forfeited it
by the abandonment of their measures, and lastly, by
tampering with great practical questions which affected every
important interest in the country, for the sake of party pur-
poses.—(Loud cheers from the 'Tories..) On the opposite
benches he saw two Noble Lords who were members
of Lord Grey's Government. In the ot;aer }lmre there was
Lord Melbourne and other Lords who came into power with
Lord Grey, and who were new in office, hut the declared prin-
ciples of that Government were these—retrenchment, peace,
and reform.—(Loud cheers.) By these fundamental principles
they were to be distinguished from all previous Governments,
which, when in opposition, they were accustomed to condemn
as extravagant in expenditure, inclined to war, and opposed to
reform. But in ten years they have had five wars.—(Cheers
and laughter.) First they had a little war at Antwerp.—.
(Laughter.) Then a little war—an unintelligable war in Spain
—next in India—next in China, anti...last of all in Syria.—

(Cheers.) Yet the Hon. Member, for Manchester gave them
an exclusive character for peace. 'At (Mr. Wortley) did not
condemn the whole policy of the thy' Noble Lord on account
of these wars—some of them might bo right._( Hear, hear. )
But what Matter for that ?—( Great laughter and cheers. )
There might be justification for some of those wars;
still he maintained Ministers had no right at the out-
set to pretend that they had an exclusive secret, for
maintaining peace. For fifteen years befo re their ac-
cession to office, the Goverment, whom they accused
of a propensity to war, had maintained unbroken pe ace, with the
exception of the isolated action of Navarino, wherea s in ten years
the ministers pledged to peace have had five wars in ten years.
What right had they then to lead people to' believe that
they had ,a peculiar faculty fir preserving the .country from
the evils of war? They promised to be the most economical
Government the country ever saw, and yet the country had
now an accumulated deficiency of seven millions and a
fearful increasing expenditure.—( Hear, bear.) Again he
said, that although he did not preto. d to denounce all the
sources of expense, from which this increase had arisen—
and God forbid he should oppose the apTlication of money
to improve the Navy—yet the Ministers had no right to
make the promise of retrenchment one of their claims to
office.—( Tory cheers.) With respect to rec:ir in, it might
be said that in that item they had not deceived tb e country.
He must grant that they reformed Parliament and the
Corporations, but some had a lurking suspicion that there
were amongst the supporters of those measures, persons
who hoped to derive from-them personal gains and inn ortance.
He would ask those persons who had watched the proceedings
of her Majesty's Government fur the last few years, he should
rather say for the last five years—(" Hear, hear," from the
Ministerial benches)—he would repeat, the last five years, whe-
ther they had not in the course of that time lavished more

places and peerages than any other previous Government?—
( Opposition cheers, and counter-cheers from the Ministerial
benches.) And what was their last act ? It was :n indecent
clutch, towards the close of last Session, at patronage, by
means of a prospective and unpassed Act of Parliament, which
was proposed to be brought into effect by whatever Govern-
ment m'vht be in office at the time of its coming into opera-
tion. There was no pretence whatever for its being imme-
diate y brought into operation. In fact, whether they looked
to t. pc; connected with the Church, topics con-
nected with the Colonies, or topics connected with
the internal government of the country, they would find in all
those questions which gave rise to the same reflections—ques-
tions which justified the same charges. If they looked,
for instance, to the question of the Appropria-
tion Clause—let them consider the history of that
for a single moment. In the year 1834 it was roposed to ap-
propriate a• certain portion of the Irish Church revenue in a
way that would facilitate the settlement of the question of
tithes in that country. Government proposed a Commission
to inquire into the subject, and that was opposed. In the year
18.35 what course did the same parties in the Government pur-
sue ? They proposed that Parliament should vote• that no-
thing could be satisfactory on the subject until it was a scertained
what amount was to be appropriated. Well, they attained
office by agreeing to settle that question, and in the ye ar 1838,
after having gone through discussion after discussioo, they
settled the question of the Irish tithes without includiog the
question of appropriation. That was another case where the
Government did not fulfil the promises with which they set
out. Without detaining the House he would come now to the
subject which was more especially, before the country at the pre-
sent moment. He would show what was the conduct of her Ma-
jesty's Government on the question of the Budget containing the
topics of the reduction of the duties on sugar and corn. Let
them look first 'to the question of sugar. Last year it was
proposed to reduce the duty on that article. It was objected_
to that proposal that it was not fair at the present moment,.
when the colonies were subject to the consequences of a great.
experiment, to introduce foreign sugar in great quantities into•
this country. If he (l%lr. Worthy) wanted effective argu-
ments upon this subject, he would refer to the speech delivered.
ou the occasion referred to by the Bight Hon. the President
of the Board of Trade. In June, 1840, that Right Hon. Gen-
tleman opposed the proposal, and again on the 11th of August
in the same year, in a short discussion on the same subject,
the Right Hon. Gentleman made the same statements with
respect to his oppositiortto that proposal. He (Mr. Wortley>
would only state that for himself his opposition to any altera-
tion in those duties rested on no ground of a financial nature.
They rested on the conviction that the peculiar circumstances
of the question at the present moment justified that opposi-
tion. In 1841, notwithstanding his opposition in the former
year, the Right Hon. Gentleman was one of those who came
down to the House to make that identical proposal
which in the preceding year he had opposed. With respect to
the Corn-laws, he had to say that he had also seen some of
that distress which the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M.
Phillips) had so feelingly spoken of that evening, and which
no man could deny. In the course of all the distress and suf-
fering which he had witnessed lately, nothing struck him more
than the calm and reasonable temper—the patient fortitude—
with which the people discussed that question, and the refusal
which they evinced to make themselves the tools of a party.
The country had been enlightened on the subject by nothing
more than by the course which the Government had taken in
proposing its adoption. If there had been any legiti mate ob-
ject in view in making that proposal, it might have been at-
tended with:successful effect. But the suspicions of the people
were excited from the manner in which the subject was
brought before them. The result was, that the people. had
looked at the question; and saw that there was something tts be
said on the other side, and that they were not to take all that
was advanced by the advocates of the proposition of the Go-
vernment. In the year 1840, the Noble Lord the Secretary
for the Colonies was of opinion, that unless there was a gene-
ral wish for an alteration in the Corn-laws, such as would en-
able the Government to step in and home the machinery of
that measure, any meddling with the question would do no.
more than excite the animosity of party discussion, which.
would not promote but retard the ameliorations of the question.
Notwithstanding that view of the subject, the Noble Lord come-
down to the House in 1841, and proposed a measure of the-
very uescription to which he had adverted. The course which.
her Majesty's Government had thought fit to pursue on the
subject of the Corn-laws, was one which he (Mr. Wortley).
thought had done more to cause them to forfeit the confidence
of the people of this country than any other measure which
they proposed. They all recollected that Lord Melbourne de-
clared, in the House of Lords, that the repeal of the Corn-laws
was one of the maddest schemes which ever entered into the
heart of man to conceive ; and in the year 1840 that Noble
Lord renewed his announcement, that it was not the intention.
of Government to propose any change in those laws. Further,,
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government had declared,
that any attempt to introduce the subject of a fixed duty on.
corn would sever the frame work of society to its foundation,
and he would not be the man to attempt any such course ; 17et,
in the year 1841, although the arguments upon the subject
were not different from those of 1841—although there was dis-
tress in the year 1840—although there was a deficiency for •
fears past in 1840—although the objects which they stated as
those which justified the proposal of the measure in 1841 were
in existence in 1840—notwithstanding, in 1841, they did not
scruple to come down to the House, and say, as the N.oble Lord
the Secretary for the Colonies had told them, that it was a
questibn betvteeti the profit of the few and the interest of the
many—if, on all these subjects, they could see that the affairs
of the country had been so conducted as to have led to cheer-
ing results, why, then, they might consent to give the Govern-
ment some credit, notwithstanding all those grievances. But
what appeared in the state of the country ? They were told in
her Majesty's Speech that she received friendly assurances from
the various Powers of Europe, that the question of the Otto-
man empire was almost settled. ‘i'hy, there were dis-
turbances in Syria and in Candia, and yet they were
told that that state of things was a satisfactory settle-
ment of the question. Let them look to India, and they
would see we were engaged in a war which it was difficult to
say in what manner it could be brought to a satisfactory ter-
mination. In China we were engaged in a war the object of
which it was difficult to understand. He was not disposed to
doubt that the conduct and valour of the British forces in that
country were likely to accomplish all that could be accova-
plished by any troops, but at the present nument he mlO pot