The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-01 00:00:00

ING .ED I^'

~~,~ s.:

measure.—(Cheers from the Opposition Benches.) " was •
never in favour of the Ballot," 'says the Right Hon.
Gentleman, " and I still doubt its effivity ; but
when my constituents came to me, and
how can we be protected in the exercise of the franchise with-
out the Ballot, I could not answer that question, and I became a
convert to the measure." That mode of conversion strongly leads to an impression that it took place without a view to I
election interests. I hare assured the Right /lon. Baronet ;
that net only with respect to the Corn-laws at Devonport, but
what would surprise him more, perhaps, with respect to the
Catholic question—l :assure him, en my honour, that Alr. I law-
son was never instructed by me to express any opinion on his own
part or mine for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of I
public opinion, and of communicating to the world any intended ;
change on my part. I tell him more, 1 never resorted to such
low means of guiding my public conduct. I hold myself responsible
for any opinions I ever entertained, but I have never employed
any other means to deliver my opinions, and I never will.—
( opposition cheers.) And therefore I tell the Right lion.
Gentlemen that when he sees any relation of mine expressing
his opinions, to infer that he did that without common eating
with me. I should leave him—as I presume the Right
Honourable Gentleman himself is left—to the ex-
ercise of his independent Judgment, without claiming
of ce•te.rnostolhr,sbliei
tgiheatto 'l
at Rightshliseie,rreeitv ia,es,
Right
eito
ienuraaoil e.:
Gentlemaneoavteironhignioi
ha
gnysoanryisg,,l.ti with
th
Baronet that I was not aware of the time the motion would be
brought forward. I had no communication with any Friend
of mine, and I beg to assure him that 1 have not advised Mr-
Dawson on the subject. When I found that that Gentleman
had expressed opinions on the Corn-laws. I must assure the
Right Hon. Baronet, and fur the purpose of convincine
the world, I will say, that I did not resort to a com-
munication with Air. Dawson. Mr. Dawson did not
resort to any correspondence on the subject with
me. 1 will put the point beyond the possibility
of doubt. When I saw the inference drawn from Mr. Dawson's
opinion w
on the subject of the Corn-laws, I wrote him to say
that I found certain inferences drawn as to my opinions, from
some speech he had delivered, and that I thought it was of im-
portance, for the sake of the
hC. a
sodnnesolttii,vtaeuurttii
authorised
:nehd,ol
,bethye
(mjipmei
nbitloioce,sap,t
ehatha
hitadshnouoldrefbeerenk
as he had donec.n'eo'wton;mre‘e'c'etahivnaedtd his letter, which gives rue an op-
portunity, and gives me pleasure to be able to read an extract
from it.—( Hear, hear.) He says, " I was surprised to see
the manner in which a few words I uttered on
the Corn-laws had been taken up ; and I had
no supposition that my words would he used as they were. I
was expressing my own opinions only. I saw. that those
opinions would put me in opposition to the Conservative party.
I thought I had said enough to avoid a misrepresentation on
the subject." I now ask:the Right Hon. Gentleman whether I
could have been making use of the speech of Mr. Dawson
for the purpose of putting forward a feeler? As the Right
Hon. Gentleman appeared to have some doubt on the subject
I have given this explanation.—( Sir G. Grey here made some
observation, which did not reach us, on a report in the News-
papers). Sir; R. Peel proceeded to say—l have nothing to do
with the report. I only wish to show the House, as it abso-
lutely necessary that I should, that I have never employed, and
that I never will employ, any man for me. I hold
myself responsible for my opinions, and. I never
will resort to such means of concealing them as the
Right Honourable Gentleman has alluded to. With re-
spect to the Corn-laws ;I know that I shall be taunted that I
made no declaration with regard to them. I say then at once
I adhere to the opinions I expressed in a former debate on the
subject. I did not say in that speech—and I presume no man
could say that I could never be in favour of any alteration in
the existing Corn-laws—but I say at the same ;time. I have no
intention of changing the details of those laws, unless I should
find good reasons for doing so.—( Hear, hear, hear.) I
have no intention to change, but you. cannot, expect me to
btnd myself down under all changes and all cireamstanees.—
(Loud cheers.) But this I say, I agree with Lord Melbourne,
and not with the Hon. Gentleman opposite. I think protec-
tion to the agricultural interest is absolutely neceisary, and I
think that the principle of a graduated duty is better than a
fixed duty, which, in my opinion, could not' be ascertained
upon any satisfactory principle, and which, in a time of istareity,
must at once be abandoned, and if once abandoned, could never
be again imposed—( Loud cheers)—not binding myself to
any definite plan, avowing myself to be unfriesdly to
any change, and stating distinctly that I approve
at
tf thethe a
principleaa e
timoef a av
thal
v graduatedttam in
ia preferencefavour o
tot. a
a fixed
continuedduty,
and effectual protection to the agriculturists.—(Cheers. )
INvioshw,toSeihr,tewr iitahtoreaslpietchtetaoe
qtuhe estsiuobhjetse,haoft
if agitation.ldo not
II do
Ihownolt
shall be taunted with having evaded that question, and of hav-
ing evaded giving my opinion upon great public questions.
Then, Sir, with respect to education, I adhere to the principle
stated by me last year.—(Loud cheers.) I am adverse
to your scheme, and do every thing in my power to give
effect, and I believe I do niore than many of the noisy
declaimers for education, for I give my personal and
effectual encouragement to it in my limited sphere. I
feel deeply, and I shall always contend that the education
in this country, for the members of the establishment, 'tight to
be founded upon the doctrines of the Established Church. Yon
must not even appear to weaken or impair its efficiency by ap-
pearing fo tolerate it merely as a legal establishment Which you
cannot dispense with, but which you would. So far from
taking from the schools the support of the Established Church,
I would attempt to add to the efficiency of them, and maintain
the authority of the Church by requiring from the Church its
proper duty, the effectual superintendence of, and control over
those schools. Ido not, Sir, claim for the Church any eon-
trol over the general education of the country--I do not put
forth any such claim. I will not refuse—nay, I
join in the
principle—and I consent to aid in the education of
those who
dissent from the Church, but I will not attempt, in order to setup
a common education—l will not make any compromisn'of the
doctrines of the Church, or exclude ministers of the Church
from that proper superintendence, from the fear of offending
those who separated themselves from the Church. It is the
duty of Parliament to uphold all those schools connected with
the Establishment, and make them efficient, by calling in the
spiritual aid of those who are the natural guardians of the
schools, as belonging to the Church. I call their aid and as-
sistance, in order to give effect to the religious educmico which
I would give to all. Now, Sir, 1 come to that topic which I
would reserve to the last—the Catholic question and, the State.
Sir, I will have no reserve on this question. I am asked
whether I agree with those who countenance the notion
of the repeal of the Emancipation Bill? I confess, Sir, that
have hitherto not condescended to answer that question.

have never thought it becoming my dignity to state whether
1 contemplated the repeal of the Emancipation Bill. I want
to know whether there is any one man living who ought to have
a more lively interest in the good working of that ,Bill or any
one who ought to view with greater pain any obstacleslo the
satisfactory and conciliatory working of . that measure. lam
asked whether I repent of the share I took in the passing of
that Bill, and that because some person at some pliblie meet-
ing said be very much cloirbted whether Sir Robert Peel did
not repent of the share he took in the paising of the'Einivaci-
pation Act. My repentanearmust arise from the inOtiverunder
which I acted at that period. Now, Sir, as to my; motives, I
will most candidly say, that if there is one virtnont ant which
I have ever performed, it was the passing of that Act.--(Loud
cheers.) As far as making sacrifices in the Feerformance of a
duty. the most pitiful sacrifices I theu made. 1 then suffixed the
alienation of friends—the disruptionof Tamil) ties—the dissolution
of party connections, the certain loss of power. All this I suf-
fered, so that, so far as motives are concerned, no man ever
made such sacrifices as I did.—(Cheers.) (Here the' Hon.
Baronet became much affected.) I have lived indeed to see
the day when insinuations are uttered of my having opposed
Emancipation so long as it was profitable, and of my having
assented to it when it became necessary for the retention of
power. I was perfectly certain that the part I took in the pass-
ing of the Emancipatioe Act must necessarily dead to the
alienation and loss of confidence of my friends, and, certainly,
ultimately to my removal from office. But now, as far as
results are concerned, this I may say—you may talk as you
please of results—the passing of the Emancipation Act was in-
evitable.—( Hear, hear.) It was impossible to resist it—im-
possible. Whoever these results may have disappointed--
and for myself I profess never to have been sanguine—
it was upon a balance:of dangers, seeing Governments divided,
seeing Parliaments divided, seeing the House of Commons had in
four Parliaments out of five recognised the principle of Roman

Catholic Emancipation ; finding myself in a minority, I came to
this resolution, that it was utterly impossible with reference to the
public safety, or to the interests of the Established Church, it was
was utterly impossible to continue this opposition, when the
public mind of Protestant:England was united to the Catholic mind

and the great strength of numbers in Ireland it favour of the
the Roman Catholic Emancipation.—(Cheers.) But what course
did I pursue ? I did contemplate retirement from office, and
serving my country in opposition. It is said that I provoked the
detest and disgust of my friends by concealing from them
my intentions. Sir, I never up to this hour have noticed those
taunts. It is perfectly true that disaffection—l will not use the
stronger term, disgust—but I do believe that disaffection and
alienation of my valued friends, arose less from my seeing the rumen.
sity of emancipation, or from the mode in which it was carried, than
f.om the appearance of concealment of intention. Allow me to
say now that these arc becoming matters of history—that of ray
whole course on the Catholic question 1 am content to bear the
obloquy, from the perfect certainty the time must come when every_
thing connected with that event must be known—when the tempo-
rary mist shall bedispelled by the force and light of day. Now, Sir,
as to the concealment, these are the facts. I never knew till within
a month before I brought forward the Catholic Question—[ never
knew, nor did my friend, the Noble Duke know, that we should
be authorised to submit that measure. It is perfectly notorious that
there was on the part of his Majesty a strong disincliaation to the
passing of the Bill. We submitted our advice that it was ins-
, possible, with our sense of public duty, to continue op-
position to those claims—that there ought to be a united
Government either to carry the measure, or to resist it,
but that with our sense of public duty, a Governinint 'fotmed on
the principle of resistance it was impossible for tis';to' maintain.
First we had permission to consider the queetion in the Cabinet
impossible for
we had not pertnission to bring it forward as a Governmant meo-
snres'innetthiedrenstnillty It'ieinliiiiis"l%i';anj,:tsolyc—onistnwleatslttitiitietrlhya Cabinet'
atop
me to declare to my friends the course I meant to pursue--I had
no authority to state what was to be brought forward. So
uncertain were we as to the authority which we should
have to bring forward the qpestion, that on the night
on which I brought it forward—that is to say, DTI the. Sth
of March—that is on the preceding day, the Duke of 'Wellington,
Lord Lyndhurst, and myse:f retired from Windsor Castle out of
office, and waited upon his Majesty, who had declined to give

him au' hority to bring the subject forward as a Government mea-
suse, and we told his Majesty that we should feel it our • duty on
the next day to declare before Parliament that we no longer held
office, and his Majesty accepted our resignations. So that on the
night preceding the bth of March, my friends and myself were out

of otlice, iu ccu►equcuce of our not obtaining the authority we
asked fur to bring forward the Catholic question.—(Hear, bear.)
In the course of the night I received the authority. It was that
night not an open question, but a Cabinet question. On the neat
day I proceeded in the fulfilment of my intentions, and prefaced
my speech by stating that I did it with:the full authority of his Ma-
jesty. Now, under those circumstances, how was it possible to
make any public declaration to the party to whom I belonged as to
the course I intended to pursue ?—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I need
hardly say that if I thought the passing of the Emanci-
pation Act necessary I must consider the repeal of it u the
wildest scheme that ever was imagined. The repeal of the
Emancipation' Art I Why, do you suppose you could stop
there ?—(Hear, hear, (tear.) The repeal of the Emancipa-
tion Act would leave the Roman Catholic in the posseesion of the
franchise, in the possesson of all those powers and privileges the
possession of which lead to the removal of their grievances.—
(Hear, hear.) It is needless to proced to a re-consideration of this
question. Every man who knows the constitution of Ireland
must know that to dream of the repeal of the Emancipation Act is
to dream of a division which never can take place.—(Cheer•)
As, then, the Emancipation Act is not to be repealed, ought it to
be fairly and honestly carried out ?—(Hear, hear.) My answer is
this: I think it should be.—(Cheers.) But I am holding no
opinion on this subject. lam told again that I created illusion—

that I permitted persons to talk ot th; repeal of the Emancipation
Act, and to make objections to the appointment of Rortian Catholics
without lilting up my voice. Where am Ito left up iny voice?
—(Cht.ers.) What did I say cn the subject of the Etnand•
patio!' Act in the course of last year P Could I speak more
explicitely than I did P I said then, that " I think, as the
law has decreed civil equality to all classes in, Ireland, without
reference to religious distinction, the Crown ought set, by;tho
In-
tetf.rence of its prerogative, to create practically a Vlcreuoa which
the law does not recognize. The Crown one+ to act_ on the
principle of the law, and not make the religions.Opinioni • on'
man the ground of any disqualification from office." , have
never taunted the Noble Lord for selecting ilosr..l. raft,-