The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURUAY, JUNE 5, 1841.

`,""_

Government, and voluntarily effect that reform which, in the
former case, had been derived to the public by the means of
coercion. It was for those reasona that he would, by voting
against the resositien of the Right Hon. Baronet, support the
continuance in office of the present Ministry to the exclusion
of those who wcu!si be substituted in their place —(Cliceis.)
Lord DUNGANNON supported the policy of the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth. The lion. and Learned
Gentleman, who had just sat dawn, had endeavoured with
some ingenuity, to bolster up the cause of her Majesty's
Ministers. If Ministers were so confident that they would
have the people with them, why were they so slow to appeal to
the country ? At almost every election which had taken
place since the commencement of the present Ses-
sion, was not the Government party defeated—was not
every vacancy filled up with a Conservative Member ? and yet
common sense was to be outraged by the assertion that Mi-
nisters possessed the confidence of the country. The Govern-
ment were ready, on any principles whatever, to keep their
place, even on principles which twelve months ago they stigma-
tised as insane. The Hon. Members for Lincoln had declared
their intention of voting in favour of the continuance in office
of Ministers, one of whose vital measures they had on a late
occasion censured. How was such a course reconcileable
with common sense ? How could they vote for men who had
involved the country in those very evils of which they corre
plained ? He believed the last hour of Ministers was nearly
come, and that they would shortly have to vacate those seats
on which they bad never carried on the Government with the
strength they ought to have done. He trusted they would be
succeeded by those who, whatever might be the success of their
efforts, would be at least honest iu their intention to benefit
the country.—( Hear, hear. )
Sir HARRY VERNEY denied that any lion. Gentle-
man on the other side was justified in throwing upon the sup-
porters of the Government the imputation that they supported
them, not from a conviction of the propriety of their meae
sures, but for party purposes.—( Hear, hear.) He thought,
if the Noble Lord who had just sat down had heard the
answer to it which was given by the Hots. Member for Lin-
colnshire (Mr. Handley), he would not so soon have repeated
the imputation.--( Hear, hear.) He did not think the late
election at Nottingham was an index of the public mind, for
it was currently reported that the Hon. Member for that
place had been sent down expressly by the Conservative Club,
from the funds of which institution it was said the expenses of
that election were defrayed. If this were the case, he did
not think there could be anything more disreputable to Hon.
Gentlemen opposite.—( Hear, hear.) He had always been a
consistent supporter of the present Government, and was not
afraid to meet his constituents. How could he sufficiently ex-
press his gratitude to the Noble Lord (J. Russell) and the Go-
vernment for the benefits they had conferred upon the coun-
try, by the manner in which, notwithstanding all the obstacles
in their way, they had carried out the new Poor-lax Bill.—
How much was the country indebted to them for amend-
ments in the criminal law ? Could it be said that they had
neglected the interests of the Church? He believed that the
present Government had been the best friends of
the Church, and that the agricultural interest, and the
Church, who were their most bitter opponents, had received
from them not only great benefits, but the greatest they could
receive. Could it be said they had neglected our colonial in-
terests ? Had our Indian administration been neglected ?
Was any accusation brought against their foreign policy ?
What reason, then, was there that he should withdraw his con-
fidence from the present Government ?—( Hear, hear.) More-
over, there were several important measures pending between
this country and foreign Powers, which he thought it was
absolutely necessary should be concluded by the Noble Lord.
He was at a loss to know what part of the administration would
be benefited by the accession of Hon. Gentlemen opposite,
and he should therefore vote against the resolution of the Right
Hon. Gentleman.—( Hear, hear. )
Colonel SIBTHORP said that as one having property in
the county of Lincoln, he felt himself called upon to express
his surprise at what had fallen from a Noble Lord and an
Hon. Member who represented that county. He had often
heard with delight the declarations made by those Gentlemen
in favour of the present Corn-laws, the main-spring of the
prosperity of the country. The opinions they had stated in the
present debate, were not the opinions entertained by the great
majority of the constituency of Lincoln. Tell him the company
you kept, and he would tell what you were. Her Majesty's
Government, of whom it was known that he (Coionel Sib-
thorp) had a very bad opinion, were about to receive the votes
of Members, who saw them bring forward measures inimical
to the interests of the country ; and that was, he would
repeat, a subject to him of regret and surprise.
With regard to the general question, he had always looked
upon the financial duties of a Ministry, as the most im-
portant they had to perform. Now what could be said of a
Government like the present, which, arriving at power had
found a large amount of revenue over the expenditure, and
yet were now leaving behind them a deficiency of fully
6,000,000/. ? And yet that was the Government which had
promised a diminution of the national burdens, and measures
which would increase the public prosperity !—( Hear, hear.)
He saw the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, the image of patience ; but he would venture
to say that the Right Hon. Gentleman would soon be brought
to regret the course he had followed. The Ministry had only
retained office by cunning, shuffling, and subtlety, which could
scarcely be exceeded by the devil himself. They had brought
forward the Poor.law Bill, a measure most unjust and iniquitous ;
and they had needlessly lavished the public money for party
purposes. Now, when a Government was guilty of such con-
duct, was there not the strongest reason for saying that they
were undeserving of any confidence ? Why, if they had not
the unwarrantable assurance to hold office in defiance of public
opinion, they would have long since consulted the good of
the people, and the dignity of the Crown, by resigning power
in favour of men more competent by their integrity,
their talents, their assiduity, and their fidelity to administer the
affairs of the country at a period when those qualities a ere so
indispensable- He had lately calculated the salaries of certain
members of the Government ; and he found that three Secre-
taries of State—the Secretary for the Colonies, the Secretary
for the Home Department, and the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, received among them 131. 3s. Hid. per day.—(Hear,
hear.) And yet many a poor man was consigned to a Bastile
because he had been visited with misfortunes after a long
life of labour. Again, he found that ten Ministers had
for the last ten years received the sum of 500,0001. ; the
Chancellor of the Exchequer having received 50,0001.,
and other members of the Government similar sums. That
was the amount merely of their salaries. Now, he would
consent to give them a fair quarter's allowance if they would
of their own voluntary act come over to that side of the House
and give up the Government, and that he thought a very li-
beral offer—( A laugh)—but they were too fond of sticking to
their places to accept it ; but ere long the vote of the House
would compel them to resign, anti he thoui,ht he could not give
a vote more satisfactory to the country than that he should
give in favour of this motion.
Mr. HAWES did not feel himself called upon to offer to
the House any lengthened observations on the speech of the
Honourable and Gallant Gentleman who had just sat down.
It was merely a parody of the speech made many years since
by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke en
the subject of the Salaries of the Privy Councillors, and he
would leave it to that Right Honourable Gentleman. But to
answer an argument which he (Mr. Hawes) considered as un-
worthy of being addressed to a British House of Commons.—
( Cheers.) He certainly had been astonished at hearing
the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman say that the speech of the
lion. Member for Liskeard had merely dealt in general charges
against the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth,
for a speech more full of accurate historical details—a
speech more replete with particular and specific charges,
it had never fallen to his (Mr. Hawes') lot to hear, and he
only regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
Tamworth had not been present in the House to do justice to
the arguments of his lion. Friend.—(Cheers.) If historical
precedents were to be referred to to determine the course that
Ministers ought to take, he thought that speech should bo con-
sidered as having settled the question. But he denied that
any Ministry since the passing of the Reform Bill could be
bound by any precedents which had occurred previous to the
enactment of that great measure. The Right Hon. Baronet
bad founded his argument on the cases of Sir Robert Walpole
and Mr. Pitt. He (11r. Hanes) .denied that those prece-
dents were at all in point, and he doubted whether any States-
man ought to be guided by precedent in such cases, but that
their conduct must be founded upon the peculiar circumstances
of each ease.—( Hear, hear.) He remembered a speech which
the Right Honourable Baronet had made soon after
the passing of the Reform Bill, in which he said that the ordi-
nary tactics of party must be given up as no longer available
under the change which had been introduced into the repre-
sentative system ; and why so ? Because under the old system
they had the nomination boroughs; but it was the public
opinion, expressed out of doors, and the independent party,
which must now determine the Ministerial position. No one
had more clearly elucidated that point than his Hon. Friend
in the speech which he had made some time ago, and the only
plan to be adopted was to be guided by the best informasion
that could be acquired as to the state of public opinion out of
doors, and on that found their policy with reference to the
questions that had been brought before the House by her
Majesty's Ministers ; they had the strongest indications
of public opinion derived from public meetings, held
in the face of day, and in the open air, that
men of:all parties were united to seek commercial free-
dom. From the indications presented by those meetings the
state of public opinion might be gathered, and by that the
pulley of Ministers ought to be guided. The Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Pembroke had referred to many mea-
sures which had been brought forward by the Government,
and had been subsequently modified by the House, and from
that he had di awn a conclusion that the Ministers did not pos-
sess the confid nee of the House. Some of his references,
however, had been singularly infelicitous. He had wholly
overlooked the vote of last Session, and in going back for a
period of ten years he had referred to some measures which
told most unfortunately for his argument.—' Hear, hear. )
The Right Honourable Baronet 'had referred to the
English Tithe Bill, and ho said that the Opposi-
tion was entitled to all the credit of that measure,
because without their support it could not have been carried.
Bus he had surely forgotten that the English Tithe Bill,
brought forward by the Eight Hon. Baronet the Member for
Tamworth, was altogether void of that principle which formed
the principal and best feature of the present law. Then, with
regard to the Irish Tithe Bill. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had made great complaint because it no longer contained the
appropriation principle, on which he said the present Govern-
ment had determined to stand or fall. He (Mr. Hawes) still
retained his hthissnoipignuirr
improprietywithregardtfortohme
the
einictipiglhel bHuotnt.heGeehnatrlgee.
Gentle-
man, acting, as he did, with the Noble Lord the Member for
North
clause
h Lancashire,ofthe ri s
h T whoem pziaglhi
tti,
ebseß calledill. i htahtec
l haeursoe owf
a sa the 4 s l7th
direct
a violation of Church property as the Appropriation Bill.
That 147th clause appropriwted to other purposes the surplus
of Church property derived from the commutation of leases,
and. yet the Noble Lord thought it fitting to vituperate her
Majesty's Government for having given up the Appropriation
clause, when he himself had been compelled to give up the
147th clause; and language as strong had on that occasion been
epplied to the Noble Lord by those amongst whom he was then
siding, at hod since been applied by himself to his former col-
leagues, and he heti been guilty of at much tergiver-
sation in giving up the Manse a* those whom he now
accused. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth
had designated that clause as dangerous to the safety of pro-
perty. In cases of this sort it was impossible for a Ministry
to ha gpided except by the public opinion, and never had that
opinion been so strongly exprs ssed as it had been in favour of a
change in our commercial pctlioy. Ministers had been
charged with having brought forward this measure merely for
the purpose of keeping their places. The same charge had
beep *tight forward against them by the Hon. Member for
Ripon, when they introdeced the Reform Bill. The fact was,
that the eireunistencee of the onuntry were such, that they
were under the necessity of proposing either additional taxation
or an alteration in the tariff. The lion, Member for
Kilmarnock had said that he (Mr. Hawes) had
I found fault with the foreign policy of the Ministry,
He hart neyer said one word on the foreign policy of the Minis-
try, and fie eheehl net allude to it, as he agreed entirely with
the Hon. Member for Liseeerd. put when the lion. Member
for Kilmarnock imputed to him a desire to P4ll dovqi the
Church because he upheld the voluntary principle, he must say
theta more irrelevant charge had never been made; seeing as
he did the success of the voluntary principle in the Dissenting
and the Catholic Churches, he thought it more calculated to
' stlresigthen the Church than the comptilsory principle ad-
vocated by *gentlein'en opposite. IF Right, Hon Baronet
had a'so taken great credit 'tis the other side for upholding this
Assembly of Jamaica, on the occasion of the Jamaica Bill.
Now, the Right Hen. Baronet hail then stated that he merely
wished te reserve a locus 'musicales to: that Assembly ; hitt
that, if they were to disobey the Imperial Parliament, he

should then he prepared to support the measure. If the
financial deficiency was the ground of the present motion, it
ought to he brought forward earlier. With regard to the
Postage Bill, he would be perfectly ready to repeat his vote,
even in the present state of the finances, because he felt con-
vinced that a r vision of the tariff would increase the revenue,
as ILA only to make good that deficiency, but to
enable Ministers to reduce many taxes which now pressed
heaVily on the industry of the country. Throughout the whole
of the debate it had never been attempted to be shown that by
a revision of the tariff the proposed revenue could not be raised,
and the Right Hon. Baronet throughout his speech cautiously
al,staineid from contesting in the slightest degree the calcula-
tions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the
duty on corn the question was not so much as to the amount of
revenue to be raised from the duty, as to whether it would not
give such a etimulns to trade as would cause an immense in-
crease in the Customs revenue. Did Gentlemen opposite mean
to say that the calculations ofthe Chancellor of the Exchequer
were erroneous? and if they were not, what could be the meaning of
their opposition, except a desire to get office, when they might
perhaps, the next day bring forward measures of a precisely
similar nature ? The Ministers had adopted plain and intel-
ligible, and had brought forward, measures calculated to confer
a tangible benefit on all classes of the people. The opposition
to those measures was based upon no intelligible principles.
With regard to the sugar duties, they did not say at once, we
will receive no slave-produce. With regard to the Corn-laws,
the Right Hou. Gentleman said he would pledge himself to the
sliding scale, and wished it to go forth to the farmers
of England that he would adhere to the present
scale, but he would not pledge himself not to intro-
duce any alteration fatal to the principle of that scale.
The Right Hon. Baronet, whilst he acknowledged that
the prosperity of the country was based upon the manufacturing
interest, meant to disappoint that great interest on this occa-
sion, and would do nothing whatsoever for that great and suf-
fering class, which, he contended would be reciprocally com-
bined' with the agricultural interest, when there was the best
opportunity of benefiting it. The Right Hon. Baronet had
declared that he would adhere to the slidin scale. They knew
not the principle upon which he opposed them; all that they
could understand was, that he was struggling for place._
( Hear, hear.) On their part it was a struggle to unfetter in-
dustry—it was a struggle for food and wages—for that inde-
pendence and comfort amongst the great masses of the people,
which would add strength to the nation and glory to the throne.
He (Mr. Hawes) rejoiced that they had to look to the leader-
ship of the Noble Lord in this great struggle.—(Hear, hear. )
They confided the cause of the people to him with perfect
confidence.—(Hear, hear.) He had not shrunk from
a clear and plain avowal of his principles. They knew
well what they were supporting, and his past conduct assured
them that their support would not be misplaced.—( Hear. )
The various meetings which had taken place throughout the
country, including Liverpool, Manchester. Glasgow, and Edin-
burgh, and the opinions there expressed, fully justified her
Majesty's Ministers in the course which they were pursuing.
If the flight Hon. Baronet should succeed in defeating their
measures, there was a feeling out of doors which would not let
the matter rest with a division in that House.—(Hear, hear.)
Opposition to such measures would be fatal to his popularity.—
( Hear, hear.) They (the Opposition) had long been leaning
upon the Poor-law agitation ; they were beginning to lean
upon their new allies, the Chartists, by tampering with their
passions. When wise measures were propounded, which had
no party object, and which would be beneficial to all parties,
the time was designated as unfitted to the calm discussion of
the question. By such conduct they would lay the foundation
:or the agitation of other subjects, and bind together men who
had not hitherto united in a straggle not merely for commer-
cial but for political measures.—( Hear.) He challenged Hon.
Gentlemen opposite to state the time when any great reduction
of commercial duties had been effected and had not been fol-
lowed by the greatest possible benefits.--( Hear.) Reference
had been made to the time of Sir Robert Walpole. He would
venture to say that the 20 years subsequent to the alterations
then made in the commercial system of this country were
marked by the greatest prosperity. So also in the time of Mr.
Pitt, and afterwards of Mr. Huskisson, there was most unequi-
vocal evidence that the same results had followed a similar po-
licy. He felt convinced, therefore, that the measures were
right in principle. They had got to hear from Hon. Gentle-
men opposite on what principle they resisted these changes. If
they could show that they were likely to be injurious to the coun-
try, there would then be some ground for concluding that it was
not a mere question of party politics.—(Hear, hear.) The
policy proposed by the Government was based upon experi-
ence ; the principles had been tried—the results were known ;
and he regretted that the measures proposed should he the sub-
ject of a struggle which would at once be prejudicial to the
authority of the House, and injurious to the best interests of
the country.
Lord STANLEY said he had observed of late, in the
course of these protracted debates, that it was a favourable
amen that they were approaching to a conclusion of it, when
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board
of Trade moved the adjournment of the debate, and com-
menced that of the succeeding night at five o'clock ; and hav-
ing that evening perceived that happy omen, he hailed that
Hon. Gentleman as the harbinger of the good tidings that
they were about to close that discussion.—( Hear, hear.) But
before they did so, he was anxious to address a few words to
the House in explanation of the grounds on which he
was prepared most cordially to support the motion of his Right
Hon. Friend. He confessed that if anything could surprise
him on the part of her Majesty's Ministers it would be the
course which they had taken. The narrow, and, as it seemed
to him, the unseemly ground which they had occupied in re-
sisting the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend the Member
for Tamworth.—( Hear, hear.) That proposition divided it-
self into two points—the first that which he should have con-
sidered, and that which in any other times would have been
considered, the main and the substantive object of discussion
and debate; the second, that which in any other times would
have been a mere truism, results as a corollary from the asser-
tion of the first proposition. What was the first pro-
position of his Right Honourable Friend? That
her Majesty's Ministers did not sufficiently possess
the confidence of that House to enable them to carry
through that House measures which they believed to be essen-
tial to the public welfare. In what manner had that been
met ? Had it been met as a Government strong in the con-
viction of its own right—strong in the conviction of its own
good cause—strong in the support of that House—strong in
the support of the people--would have met a proposition so
directly condemnatory of their whole conduct and pro-
ceedings as a Government? Why he would imagine that if
the Government did nut meet it with a resolution avowing the
confidence of Parliament and of the country in the measures
they had adopted, at least they would have taken the bold
line of denying • distinctly and at once that they did not
possess the confidence of that House and of the country, that
they would have told them that their measures and their prin-
ciples had been so plain and straightforward, that they had at
all times so distinctly avowed their intentions, that if they did
not sti 1 retain the confidence of the House, that it was by no
change of conduct on their part, but by vaccillation, which
they had no right to expect, on the part of the people of Eng-
land. They would have told them that the principle which
they laid down on their accession to office, they had strenu-
ously and steadily persevered in maintaining; that they had
firmly adhered to what they believed to be right—that they
had steadfastly and constantly resisted that which they felt in
their consciencies to be wrong, and upon that ground.
upon the declaration—the clear, manly declaration of
their principles—the clearness with which they had
asserted them, the steadfastness with which they had
acted upon them, the firmness and the success with which
they had vindicated them, any Government worthy
the name of a Government, would have met the
proposition of his Right Honourable Friend.— (Loud
Cheers.) And now how had these Ministers—for he would
hardly say this Government—( Cheers from the Opposition)—
how had these Ministers met the proposition of his Right Hon.
Friend ? Why, with faint and feeble oppo ition, and at last
with a hesitating and reluctant admission of the truth of the
proposition.—( Hear, hear.) True it was, that the Right
Hon. Gentleman, whom he did not see in his place, the Presi-
dent of the Board of Control—true it was, that the Right
Honourable Gentleman, in an early period of that
debate, did venture on a hesitating defence that
her Majesty's Government were not quite so bad
as his Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had asserted. He did
produce a certain number of measures, which in the last five or
six years they had succeeded in carrying through the House.
True it was he said " we have been defeated on many occa-
sions ; on more than one occasion we have been forced to
abandon our measures—on more than one occasion we have
been compelled to modify ethers ; we have received the a :g-
-gestions, we have received the corrections, we have deferred to
the commands of those who, upon the other benches, dictate
to us what course we should pursue ; but some measures we
have carried—don't deny to us that some measures we have
been able to carry since that period of 1835 down to the present
time." And what said his Right Hon. Friend ( Sir J. Graham)
to demolish the argument of his Right Hun. Friend opposite?
The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite went through those mea-
sures seriatim. He enumerated the whole of them, and his
Right Hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, following him,
showed that there was not one of those measures upon which
he had nit received the support of his political opponents. Not
one of all the measures which the Hon. Gentleman had enu-
merated—not one upon which upon the introduction, upon the
second reading, or upon the third reading, was a single division
taken by his political opponent ; with the single exception, he
granted, of the Municipal Corporation Bill for Ireland, which
at last was passed, by the Right Honourable Gentleman op-
posite adopting the franchise which was insisted upon
by that side of the House. But, said the Right Hon. Gentle-
man who had spoken that evening, the Vice-President of the
Board of Trade, " What blame can you attach to us if all our
measures have been so perfect and so pure that they com-
manded the respect and the support of our opponents ?" The
argument was a plausible one, but would it bear examination?
What, if they should have borrowed those measures from their
opponents themselves? Whet if they were not their measures?
W hat if they were measures which belonged to the Government
of Earl Grey—which belonged to the Government of Sir R.
Peel—which were adopted by them (the Ministers) and passed
by them with the support and assistance—aye, and almost
in every case, with modifications concurred in by them,
of those measures which, by taking from their predecessors,
they adopted as their own, and now claimed the merit of pass-
ing.—( Hear.) He spoke then of legislative measures and of
legislative measures only. His Right Hon. Friend went
through the whole of these measures, and he (Lord Stanley)
would not weary the House by adverting individually to each
of those points, to which he had alluded, and upon none of
which he had met with an answer from the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite. But there was one point which his Right
Hon. Friend had omitted. He proved distinctly and clearly
that her Majesty's Government bad never succeeded in carry-
ing a measure without the consent of their political opponents
—that many measures which they had attempted to carry, they
had been compelled to abandon without COWlllig to a division,
and that upon others they had been defeated. But he had
omitted to state that the Government did not command the
confidence of those who called themselves their supporters,
and that not half a dozen but twenty times in the course of
live years they had been compelled in their resistance of mea-
sures brought forward by their OWTI supporters to call in the
assistance of their political opponents.—(hear, hear.) Would
the House permit him, without going back to an earlier period
than the Scssion of 1838, to call its attention to the conduct
of the Government in referrence to the Ballot? In 1838 the
Pallet was not an open question. The Government declared
that as a Government they would oppose its adoption. In
1838 the Hon. Member for London brought forward his mo,
thin for introducing the Vote by Ballot. The Government
opposed it. The Noble Lord addressed the house in opposition
to that motion, and when they came to the debate upon the
motion, which was resisted by the whole strength of Go-
vernment, the following was the result of that division :
In favour of Mr. Grote's motion, ayes, 198—noes, 315. Now
how much did her Majesty's 111inisters contribute from their
own supporters to that? Why, the ayes exclusively consisted
of those supporters who were about to vote confidence in her
Majesty's Government, and who looked to the Noble Lord as
their leader and guide, the ayes to make up that number; of
19:3, including 16 persons holding office, produced just 65
Members.—(Loud cheers.) While of the 315 who had
ileieatod the 198
supporters of the Government—thereby
aiisistiog the Cieveroment--out of thatuunaber the Conserva-
tive party furnished 250, In 1839, Mr. O'Connell, on the
28th of February, moved to bring in a MU to assimilate the
franchise of Ireland to that, of England. When a division was
come to on that subject the ayes in,favour of the motion were
92, arid the noes against the motion were 155, of which,
her Majitlty's Government, including '4l gentlemen in
of ice, NfiTlishfA 4% and the Goliseivatives 106,—(Loud
cheers, ) On the March the Honourable
Member for Kilkenny moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
Amend the Reform Act. That was resisted by the Govern.

ment. The Hen. Member for Kilkenny brought fifty gentle-
men to vote with him ; the motion, however, was negatived
by a majority of 85, and of that number the Conservatives
produced 56 gentlemen, while the Government produced only
.29. On the 4th of June, 1839, the Hon. Baronet the Mem-
ber for Preston brought in a Bill to alter the voters for counties.
The Hon. Baronet had 81 votes; the noes were 272; of that
number the Government produced 39, while their Conserva-
tive opponents produced 168.—(Cheers.) In the two sessions
of Parliament that had just expired, he had produced four in-
stances in which the result had happened which he had stated,
from which, if the Conservative party had remained passive,
the Government would have been defeated by their own sup-
porters. He brought this fore ard as the last of three circum-
stances marking the great command of influence and power
which the Government possessed in the House of Commons.
He would spare the House the trouble of hearing all the de-
tails, because the Noble Lord the :secretary for Ireland had
frankly confessed that, as to the first part of the proposition,
they had not the confidence of the House, so far as to enable
them to carry their measures into effect.—(Hear.) Was ever
such an admission, he would ask, made by a Government be-
fore? Supposing that his Right Hon. Friend had brought
this proposition forward, that the Government did not pos-
sess the confidence of the House sufficiently to enable them
to carry their own measures, what., he would ask, would have
been the situation of such a Government in any other time if
it had been carried? Would not that have been taken as a
decision that the Government were not worthy of conducting
the business of the country ?—(Hear'. ) To the astonishment,
however, of himself, and, he had no doubt, of the country,
under such circumstances the Noble Lord, admitting the first
proposition, found it convenient to demur to the second, and to
state that, though they had not the confidence of the House, it
did not follow necessarily that they should resign.—( Hear.)
Au far as he thought the proposition weak, so he thought the
arguments by which it was maintained, were the most extraor-
dinary he had ever heard.—(Hear, hear.) He never expected
to Lear from a Whig Administration such arguments as he had
heard from the President of the Board of Controul, and the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War. What said
the President of the Board of Control? Why, he stated that
it was not their duty to resign, though they did not possess the
confidence of the House, or carry their measures ; it was not
their duty to resign because they did possess the favour of the
Crown—( Great cheering)—and, that no doubt might be enter-
tained, the Right Hon. Gentleman followed up this declaration
with the following observations—" which, let me tell you, is
the best support any Minister can have."—( Cheers. ) Those
were the words that fell from a Whig Minister—words that
fell from one who was at one time the ardent and zealous de-
fender of the people's rights—such were the doctrines which he
had put forth to the Commons eif Great Britain. He (Lord
Stanley) knew not whether that Right Hon. Gentleman was
in his place or not ; if he was, he would tell him that there
could, in his judgment, be no higher responsibility
, or a graver offence than that of a Minister attempting
to whisper such a docrine in the ear of a Sovereign.-
- (Cheers.) He would tell him that of the personal favour of
Crown they knew nothing in that House. Deep as was the
crime of the Minister, who fancying that he possessed that fa•
vour, presumed to use it for party interests, deeper still was
his guilt who dared to use the name of his Sovereign to over-
awe the discussions and to fetter the free exercise of the ex-
pressions of the Representatives of the people.—( Great cheer-
ing.) Another argument that had been used by another
Cabinet Minister, the Secretary at War,• was that it mattered
little whether Government were enabled to carry their mea-
sures so long as they met with no censure from the House for
their administration of the law. Never, he believed, was such
a fatal doctrine put forward, for its effect would be
completely to overthrow the power of the House of Commons
over any Minister, and would leave the administration of
the affairs of the country in the Crown, and the Crown alone.
He (Lord Stanley) had heard this doctrine proceed nom the
Right Hon. Gentleman with great astonishment, but he was
in some measure relieved when he found that that doctrine
rested with the Right Hon. Gentleman himself, and that he
had brought forward no authorities for it. He asked the
Right Hon. Gentleman to follow up his doctrine, and tell him
when, in the history of this country, a Minister had not been
displaced by a vote of want of confidence. A vote of censure
was the highest test of the disapprobation of the House of
Commons of the conduct of the Ministry. The Right Hon.
Baronet the President of the Board of Control had gone on to
say that a single defeat was no ground for a Minister leaving
office. Was this, he (Lord Stanley) would ask, the case of a
single defeat? Was it not the fourth, the fifth, the sixth—he
could not tell how many times they had been defeated.—
( Hear, hear.) They had boasted of the quietness
of Jamaica. If Jamaica was tranquil, it was because her Ma-
jesty's Ministers had not been enabled to carry forward
the measures which they contemplated with respect to that
country. If the Church was tranquil, it was because the
Ministers could not carry their measures on that subject. If
the national at stem of education was not altered, it was be-
cause the Government had not been enabled to carry their
measures on that subject. Much had been said with respect
to Sir Robert Walpole, and the course which he had pursued
during his Administration had been brought forward as a pre-
cedent. Now, he (Lord Stanley) had looked back to the
history of Sir Robert Walpole. Sir Robert Walpole had en-
joyed the confidence of the House of Commons and the Lords
for a long period. He had administered the affairs of
the country for a length of time unexampled, but the
period arrived when he lost that confidence, and he then suf-
fered himself to be overborne in his own Cabinet.—( Hear.)
He permitted himself to be led into measures, and became re-
sponsible for them, which he himself disapproved of. He
plunged the country not into civil strife, but civil war. Why
did he do this? Why, at the entreaty of his Sovereign. He
did this in obedience to the passions of people out of doors,
which had been excited by those.who sat in the same Cabinet
with himself.—(Great cheering.) And from the moment he
thus unwisely yielded, the power of Sir Robert Walpole was
gone—the place remained but the authority was gone. Divided
councils brought inefficient actions. Feebleness succeeded to
energy, and the result was ignominious concession
and compromises. The hour of defeat came at last, and after
a long life of useful service, the power of Sir Robert palpole,
which he might have resigned with dignity, was wrested from
him by a majority of the House of Commons, and he fell less
respected and less regretted, because he fell too late and too
reluctantly.—(Great. cheering.) He (Lord Stanley) could
not but think that there might be at least one Minister at the
present day who might look upon the past history of Sir
Robert Walpole as a matter of deep reflection for him-
self, for he would most assuredly find that he would
be placed in the same situation, because he had repeated
the faults whish had been committed by Sir Robert Walpole.
But the Right Hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate took new
grounds, and asked them had not the Crown the power of dis •
solving Parliament ? and he said there was the alternative of
dissolution or resignation, and the question was whether they
should or should not dissolve the Parliament. With all re-
spect to the Right Hon. Gentleman, that was not the ques-
tion before the House—it was a question which, according, to
the Constitution, never ought to be mooted in that House.
No doubt the Crown had the power—no one disputed that
that power formed one of the prerogatives of the Crown,
one which that House had no right and no desire to meddle
with, although he felt persuaded that gentlemen on that (the
Tory) side of the House did not deprecate a dissolution.—
He believed that the country at large were anxiously awaiting
a dissolution, which would enable them to relieve themselves,
by their own exertions, from an Administration which had
long crippled their exertions.—(Cheers.) But it was a ques-
tion with which that House had nothing to do. If such a step
were taken it must be taken upon the responsibility of
the advisers of the Crown, and they were at all times
responsible to a futuro Parliament.—(Cheers.) He would
ask what it was they sought for in a dissolution—what was there
to justify such a step—he did not shrink from or deprecate the
measure, but the country had a right to know, and would ask,
under what circumstances and for what purposes the Govern-
ment advised the Sovereign to dissolve the Parliament ? No
doubt they would say it was for the purpose of carrying the
alteration in the operation of the duties on corn, timber, and
sugar; one part of the scheme they had already abandoned,
and on another they confidently anticipated a defeat.
In what position was the country placed by such conduct?
Did they take these measures up for the purpose of making
the motion of the vast machine of State work more easy, or did
they propose by them to bring the two Houses of Legislature
into greater harmony? It was none of these—because at that
moment the two Houses were perfectly in accordance with
each other. But should the Government, unexpectedly even to
themselves, succeed in their endeavours, and obtain a trifling
majority of one or two, the happy result of their agitation,
charged as they were with the operations of the Government,
they would have created difficulties for themselves and placed
two accordant parts of the Legislature in direct hostility. But
there was one object to be gained—it was a desperate effort by
agitation and excitement, an effort which the good sense of the
people would repudiate and visit with signal failure—it was
an attempt to prop up a tottering Government.—( Cheers. )
But Members of that House had no right to suppose a disso-
lution approaching; they were bound to discuss measures as if
they were assured that the House would sit
the whole period allowed by this Constitution,
For what reason was it that ever since the passing of the
Septennial Act no one Parliament had been allowed to sit the
whole period of time ?—it was for a very wise purpose that
Members of that House should not carry on their discussions
under the fear of appearing before their const tuents, that they
might legislate for the good of the people, and not waste the
time of the public and make laws under the immediate fear of
appearing on the hustings. If they did not act independently
of any such fear, they did not legislate but degraded
themselves into agitators. In 1807 Mr. Canning in a debate
let fall an expression intimating that shortly after that debate
the House would probably be dissolved. Was this acquiesced
in by the Whigs of that day? No. Lord Henry Petty, now
Lord Landsdowne, indignantly repudiated such tin eatening and
unconstitutional language, and hoped the constitutional man-
liness of the House would not be influenced or intimidated by
it. What did Lord,Howick say?—not his Noble Friend whom
he saw opposite—( Laughter)—but Lord Grey, whom not one
of the Hon. Gentleman opposite dared say was with them
when the division was go.ngion ; he suggested that if the
original motion were lost it might be necessary
for the House to address the Throne in order to meet the
threat, and it was equally deprecated by Mr. Whitbread. That
was the way such a threat as that now held out was met in
1807. But he would ask them were they about to dissolve
Parliament, for if so, then they had no right to carry on their
discussions under that menace. They were bound to assume
that they would not be dissolved, but if it was so then they
were placed in such a situation as no Minister of the Crown
had any right to put them, for they were bringing forward
great questions, not in the hope of passing them into laws, but
because they were about forthwith to appeal to the people.
Now he would say that it was most unconstitutional to discuss
such measures under such a threat. It had been • said, a few
nights ago, that he (Lord Stanley) was an unworthy pupil of
the late Mr. Huskisson—that was a name which Hon. Gentle.
men were fond of quoting, when it answered their purpose,
but what did he say on this very subject ? On the 18th April,
1826, Mr. Whitbread, or Mr. Whitmore, was about to bring
on a motion to "consider the present state of the Corn-laws."
Mr. Husaisson said " his purpose in rising was to persuade the
House, if possible, not to engage in the discussion on such an
occasion, for it must terminate in embarrassment. If th re
was any one question more than another which ought not to be
discussed on the eve of a general election, it was the Corn-laws."
Such was the opinion of Mr. Huskissou against the policy and
prudence of introducing a discussion on the Corn-laws on the
eve of a general election ; but what would he say if it were
done with a view to its being the very pivot on which the
election hung ?—(Loud cheers.) What would he have said if,
in connection with the consideration attached to the Corn-
laws, and their influence upon wages and the well-being of the
humbler classes,—what would he have seid, if it were proposed
to combine with it the existence of a Government of one of
the two great parties which divided that country?—( Cheers. )
That would make the agitation tenfold; and yet under such
circumstances an address had been put into his hands, and he
would read to the House the calm and temperate tone in which
they were appealed to on the eve of a general election. (The
Noble Lord here read some extracts from an address calling on
the people to support the proposition of Ministers.) That appeal
was addressed to the constituency now represented by the
Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, the leader of that
House.—( Great cheering.) He was far from thinking for a
moment that the Noble Lord had anything to do with it. He
should Ise insulting the good taste and feeling of the Noble
Lord if he had thought him guilty of such a production as that ;
but he had brought it forward to indicate the degree of calmness
and deliberation, and the excited popular feelings, under which
the House itf Commons-was called on to deliberate on one of the
most exciting and interesting questions. Before he sat down
he wished to address a few words to the Hon. Gentlemen who
professing, and sincerely he believed, great regard for the agri-
cultural interest of the country, formed part of that unfortu-

nate clese designated by the supporters of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, the grinders of the poor and monopolists. —( Hear, hear. )
Gentlemen who went to the country not on any defined
arid general pienciple, but simply and plainly on this question,
would they not do away with the various monopolies.—( Minis-
terial cheers.) They were going then to induce the consti-
tuencies of the country to return such a House of Commons
as would effectually put down the great interests v, hich thesis
Hon. Members were pleased to call monopolies, and of which
that with which the landowners were connected was the first,
the greatest, and the most atrocious.—(Hear, hear.) That
was then the question upon which they were about to go to
the country. It was upon that that the Ministry were seek-
ing the support and countenance of the present House of
Commons. 'f he Noble Lord the Member for Lincolnshire
had asked how could he refuse to vote confidence in a Go-
vernment when he entirely concurred in the measures they had
careied, and those they had abandoned. The Noble Lord
added that he was going to vote confidence in them, because
next week they were going to bring forward the important
measure on which they rested the whole fate of the Govern-
ment.— (Cries of "100, no.") He really did not understand
them ,*but he thought they had risked their seats upon the
failure of these measures. They certainly had not risked them
on the question of the sugar duties.—(Renewed cheers. )
Well, then, he would say that the measure which they con-
sidered the most important was to be brought forward next
week, and the Noble Lord would not vote a want of confidence
in them because he was convinced of this, that however
loudly they talked, and however much they pledged them-
selves to pretending to bring it forward, he knew they had not
the power to carry it. The argument was certainly a singular
one.—( Hear, hear.) He had lately seen in one of the papers
supporting the measures of the Government, and supposed to
be one of its organs, a statement that, after all, the motion of
his Right Hon. Friend might be an advantage to the Govern-
ment—that its failure might give them time to organize the
constituencies—to excite the people, and to make preparations,
in consequence of which, upon a dissolution, they would have
a better chance of defeatist; the agricultural interests. —(Loud
cheers.) He did not think they would venture to take the
course recommended by their organ. Suppose the House was
equally divided, and that the fate of the motion depended on
two to three votes, and that these were the three votes of the
three Members of the most agricultural county in England,
he would put it to the consideration of these lion. Gentlemen
whether their vote in favour of the Government on the pre-
sent occasion would be balanced by their vote against them on
the Corn-laws.—(Cheers.) The matter of the accusation
brought against him (Lord Stanley) by the Hon. Gentleman—
whereas, in the year 1834, he had declined to form a part in
the Administration of the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth,
from his not having confidence in the measures which the
Right Hun. Baronet might propose, and that he had declared
that he would not, therefore, take on himself a share of the
official responsibility ; and whereas, he (Lord Stanley) had
made that statement, he nevertheless, was prepared to offer
his most cordial concurrence in all political questions emanat-
ing from the Right Hon Baronet, and to take upon himself
his humble share in whatever responsibility was to come—the
charge of inconsisteney involved in that accusation he (Lord
Stanley) did not think it worth his while to refute. He would
prefer submitting entirely to the weight of the accusation. But
although it might be, as it really was to him (Lord
Stanley) a matter of the greatest indifference whether
the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Handley) wrote him-•
self down a Tory or any thing else, he -(Lord Stanley) must
say that it startled him to hear from the Hon. Gentleman, at a
time when he was talking about inconsistency, belying the
whole course of his previous life—( Opposit ion cheers)—by now
writing himself down a Whig. He (Lord Stanley) believed
there was no doubt that, whatever the Hon. Gentleman's opi-
nions might be now, from the year 1820 to 1826, the had not
the least hesitation in writing himself down a Tory. The
Hon. Gentleman, if he (Lord Stanley) was not 'very much
mistaken, was one of the warmest supporters of Lord Liver-
pool. In 1825 the Hon. Gentleman gave his vote in opposi-
sition to a motion even to inquire into the justice of the Roman
Catholic claims. At a subsequent period, at a time when the
Hon. Gentleman was not in Parliament, when a ground of
complaint which he had against the administration of his
(Lord Stanley's) Right Honourable Friend and the
Duke of Wellington was, that they had conceded
Catholic Emancipation ; and it was not till Earl Grey
came to the head of affairs that the Honourable Gentleman
became a consistent Whig.—( Conservative cheers.) It was
proved that the Hon. Gentleman was every constant supporter
of Lord Grey's, as he was of Lord Liverpool's Administration.
When his (Lord Stanley's) Right Hon. Friend came into
office, if he was not mistaken, the Hon. Gentleman consulted
him as to the course he ought to take on that occasion, as he
(Mr. Handley) did not like to give a refusal to the supporters
of the Right Hon. Baronet. Although he (Lord Stanley)
could not claim to himself the honour of having long retained
the office of adviser to the Hon. Gentleman—( Cheers and
laughter from the Opposition)—he found that either according
to his advice, or to his own inclination, the Hon. Gentleman
voted in favour of Mr. Manners Sutton against the Speaker
proposed by the other side. But Government were subse-
quently put in a minority, and thus lost the support of the
Hon. Gentleman.—(Cheers and laughter from the Opposition)
and from that time to the present he (Lord Stanley) was ready
to admit the Hon. Gentleman had been as steady a supporter
of Lord Melbourne's Administration as he was previously of
the Administration of the Earls Grey and Liverpool. The
Hon. -Member for Shropshire said that great statesmen were at
times constrained to be guilty of great inconsistencies ; and if
great statesmen were guilty of great inconsistencies, he (Lord
Stanley) thought that they ought to have great mercy
upon those who, at an humble distance, followed
in their steps.—( Cheers and laughter.) The Hon. Gentle-
man should abstain from.making those personal charges, more
especially as he was so subject himself to be retorted on. The
Hon. Gentleman had been pleased to ask his (Lord Stanley's)
Right Hon. Friend; what answer he should give to the farmers
of Lincoln, and what would be his future policy in the Govern-
ment of the country, stating at the same time that the farmers
were extremely alarmed at that policy. He (Lord Stanley)
was inclined to think that when the Hon. Gentleman met the
farmers of Lincoln, he would have quite enough to do in answer-
ing for himself, without taking on himself the somewhat
superfluous task of answering for others. Now, I.e
(Lord Stanley) thought Government had no right at all to ex-
pect that his Right Hon. Friend should state in detail what
his course would be in the possible event of his being charged
with official responsibility. He (Lord Stanley) recollected
that Mr. Tierny, a great Whig authority, used always to say
that the duty of an Opposition was very light—that it was to
oppose to everything, to propose nothing, and to turn out the
Government. That was the political creed of Mr. Tierny as
to the duty of an Opposition; and now he (Lord Stanley) must
say that if ever there was an Opposition which had gone out of its
way to depart from that course—if ever there was an Opposition
which hesitated to embarrass the Government in the measures
they brought forward, if ever there was an Opposition which'
had not acted factiously, but had given their best advice in
suggesting alterations and improvements, and carrying such
modifications as would insure to their measures the legislative
sanction of the other House, it was the Opposition that sat
opposite the Noble Lord. But he must say, although they
had not been a factious Opposition, although they had endea-
voured to perform their duties by giving, without
reference to Opposition, their best support to such
measures of the Government as were well founded,
yett there was: a time when the duty of forbearance
in he Opposition became a crime against the people of Eng-
land. There was a time when the measures of their iniquities
were full.—( Cheers.) There was a time when, if they no
longer took the voice of friendly warning, they must receive
stronger hints, and forbearance must be at an end and he
had every hope that the House of Commons had come to that
limit of forbearance, as he had no doubt whatever that the
people of England already had.—(Cheers.)
Lord .I..HN RUSSELL said that he considered it his
duty to wait till a late period of the debate, in order that
he might hear the various al egations which would
be brought forward—the various charges which would be ad-
duced in support of the motion of the Right Hon. Baronet.
He (Lord John Russell) must say, that admitting the great
ability and eloquence with which that motion was supported
admitting the very great numbers who were likely in the divi-
sion to give their assent to it, yet that that motion lay in the
spirit of the Constitution—that that motion was founded in
real merit, he (Lord J. Russell) did not believe,—(Cheers. )
The Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) in part of a sentence had said
that the time was come fur that House to get rid of an Adminis-
tration which had too long crippled the energies of the country,
Now, that was the proper charge to bring against the present
Administration. If they had brought forward the charge— if
they had supported it by argument—that the present Admini-
stration had crippled the energies of the country, he sleauld be
the last person to deny that the confidence of the House ought
to be withdrawn from such a Ministry, and that no preroga-
tive of the Crown, ne favour of the Sovereign, ought to pro-
tect them from that want of confidence.—(('heers.) But
where bad the energies of the country been crippled?—( Loud
cheers.) Had it. been in the Mediterranean ?—( Cheers. ) Had
they been wanting in supporting their ally the Sovereign of the
Turkish empire?—(Cheers.) Had it been in India or
in any part of the East ?—( Cheers.) Had the energies of the
country been crippled when her Majesty's Representative was
r insulted, confined, and outraged in the territories of the Em
peror of China ?—(Cheers. ) He asked had the energies of
the countries been crippled in either asserting our policy or in
vindicating the wr .ngs which the country had sustained ?
With respect to our colonial possessions, had the energies of the
people been crippled in suppressing the insurrection in Ca-
nada? In all points of our colonial possessions were they not
now increased in strength, and more firmly attached to this
country than before ?—( Cheers.) Was it at home that the
energies of the country had been crippled ?—(Cheers.) Had
insurrection and Insubordination gained head, and had the powers
of the law been found unequal to their task in feeble hands ?
(Cheers. ) With respect to Ireland, so long a source of com-
plaint and of violent discussion in that House, it had been their
anxious effort to conciliate the minds of the people of that part
ef the lit ited Kinedom to the Crown of this country, and was
it in Ireland that they had lost the afrections of that generous
people ?—( Che 'rs. ) Then he said, how was the Noble Lord
to suite his charge against them that they had crippled the
energies of the country ?—(Cheers. ) And during the whole
abate, neither he (Lord etanley) nor any other man of the
Opposition, had been able to prove a single charge.—
( Loud cheers.) He (Lord John Russell) was obliged
to go back, but he hoped he should not be obliged to do so at
great length, after the argument of his Right Hon. Friend
( Sir J. C. Hobhouse) en the first night of the debate—but he
was obliged to go back to the constitutional argument put for-
ward by the Right lion. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) when he
brought tosward his resolution. The general argument,as he
(Lord J. Russell) understood it, was that, a Ministry which
did not sufficiently possess the confidence of the Hou,e of
Commons to enable them to carry through the House measures
which they deemed of essential Importance to the public wel-
fare, ought not to continue in office ; and that continuance in
office under such circumstances was at variance with the spirit
of the Constitution. The Right. Hon. Gentleman then, after
giving some instances, stated that such was the case with
the present Ministry, and that, therefore, their continuance in
office was at variance with the spirit of the Constitution. Now
with regard to the precedents which the Right Hon. Gentle-
man bad brought forward to prove his general proposition, it
was remarkable that there was hardly an instance which he
mi ntioned that at all bore out the argument he wished to sup-
port—for it had so happened that until very late times
it had not been the case that a Ministry who were not able to
carry through that House legislative measures, had thought
their continuance in office after such defeats was at all incom-
patible with the spirit of the Constitution.—(Cheers.) His
Right Hon. Friend ( Sir J. C. Hobhouse) had quoted the instance
of the Administration of 1717, which was defeated on the
Peerage Bill; of Sir Robert Walpole, who was defeated on the
Excise Bill ; of Mr. Pitt, who was defeated on the Fortifica-
tion resolution, in which he declared that the fortification of
the dockyards was necessary for the safety of the country ; and
of Lord Liverpool, who was defeated on the property tax.
These statements completely contradicted those of the Right
Won. Baronet. With respect to measures generally, it was
necessary that a Ministry should be able to carry all they
deemed important. But then the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman said there was the case of Lord North. What was
the ca.e of Lord North ? It was Lord North's
Administration that was condemned by the House. His ad-
ministraf oki of the powers of tie country in a war against our
colonies in America, and the House came to a resolution that
fter losing thirteen colonies, after an immense expendituie
of blood and treasure, that offensive war ought no longerguet
jot: I
be continued, and they afterwards carried out the motion, and
affirmed that any one would bean enemy to his King andyeen,
try who should advise the King to carry on the war; Was I
that a question of legislation?—(Loud
such as whether the period of the Pcor-law Commission should
be reduced from ten years to five ?—( Cheers.) There was
no question that that Administration managed the re-