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

tion. Government does not enjoy such support in this House
as enables them to carry on the affairs of Government." You
thought then you stood so much in need of the support you
(lid not possess, that you would be placing in jeopardy the best
interests of the Colonies—continuing in office, what security
can you give them of bring better able to administer their af.
fairs ? What said Lord Melbourne? After mentioning the; con-
versation between Burnett and King William, in which the sub-
ject of discussion was, which was thebest foam of Government,
republican or absolute monarchy, and King William said,
" I know not what form of Government is best, but I am
sure the worst is that which has the form without the privileges
of monarchy," Lord Melbourne went on to say, "I do
not know what form is best in itself, but this I do know, that
unquestionably the worst is that which does not possess suffi-
ciently the confidence of the country, to carry those measures
it thinks necessary for the' public good."—( Cheers.) That
was Lord Melbourne's speech. He did not then draw
the distinction since drawn between the executive and
legislative administration of Government, which their new
ally has brought forward as a now ground for con-
fidence. Lord Melbourne said that the worst Govern-
ment was that which had not power to carry through
measures it deems necessary for the public good. The Right
Hon. Gentleman differs from Lord Melbourne in this respect.
He says• that there is a distinction between the executive and
legislative administration of Government, and for a vindication
of the Government continuing in office without public confi-
dence, which appears to me a necessary circumstance to the
efficiency of all Administrations , is it to be tolerated as a doc-
trine that Government is merely responsible for the executive
Administration ? " Government," says the Hon. Gentleman,
" has the paramount duty of executing legislative duties at-
tached to the capacity of Members of Parliament." Why, if
that be true, it is a complete abdication of every function of the
Government._(Cheers.) Will you let me ask you, in a free
Government how is it possible for a Government to maintain
public respect that limits itself to the mere discharge of execu-
tive duties? Take the case of.ramaica. • You thought it necessary
to annihilate the Assembly of Jamaica, and to substitute
despotic for a free Government. Could anything more con-
nect the administrative with the executive department, as
distinguished front each other by the Right Hon. Gentleman as
the new ground on which to vindicate the Government_e
ground against the introduction of which I shall take the first
opportunity of protesting, that of open questions—a ground, in-
troducing, I think, certain intestine discords where there ought
to be union, and degrading the character of public men by
allowing every species of coalition, however unprincipled ? It
will be a fatal policy, indeed, if that, hitherto the exception,
and an unfortunate exception, in every case is to be consti-
tuted the rule--if every Government may say we feel
pressed by those behind us, we find ourselves unable
to stand ; but still, maintaining our own opinions, to command
a majority and retain the confidence of our followers, let us
snake each question an open question, and destroy every ob-
stacle to every possible combination.--(Cheers.) The lion.
Gentleman says there have been instances of open questions in
the recent history of this country ; there have been such. But
is there one that has not been pregnant with the greatest evils ?
Go back to 1782, when Mr. Fox admitted open questions.
Mr. Pitt did the same on the slave trade. The Catholic ques-
tion was an open question. Why, if ever there was a lesson of
instruction against open questions you could not produce three
more striking ones. Take first the coalition of Lord North and
.11r. Fox, Reform was an open question; in that Government
Lord North was opposed to reform ; the coalition was formed
and could not have been formed without open questions, and
that fact produced such a degree of public disgust and disappro-
bation that. it led :to' the disgraceful expulsion of the Govern=
ment. Well, the 'slave trade—is there any one act of Mr.
Pitt's life that has been . more condemned than his
permitting the slave trade to be an open question?
Read what a recent historian says of open questions;
we have great warning and small encouragement to imitate the
course pursued. Speaking of Mr. Fox and the coalition, he
says, "On such grounds Mr. Fox and Lord North succeeded-
in overpowering the Ministry, and took their places, which
they held for a few months, when the King dismissed them
amidst the -universal joy of the country—men of all ranks and
parties and sects joining in one feeling of disgust at the factious
profligacy in which the unnatural alliance was formed, and
beholding with apprehension the progeny which, as Mr. Wil-
berforce said, was stamped with the features of bath parties—
the violence of the one party, and the corruption of the other."
—(Cheers.) What is to prevent me, if these doctrines are
just, from coalescing with the Hon. Member for West-
minster in opposition to her Majesty's Government; to make all
questions open questions, and consenting to conduct the Go-
vernment by departments, and so be free from the responsibility
of legislation because we cannot command a majority without
it 2—(Cheers.) Mr. Pitt and the slave trade is the next happy
example given. The same historian says—" These are heavy
charges, but far greater remain against the conduct of that
eminent person. No man felt more strongly on the subject of
the African slave trade than he did. His speeches on the
subject are the finest among his noble orations ; Tet did
be continue for eighteen years of his life to suffer
every one of his colleagues to vote against the
abolition. His conduct on the slave trade, is the darkest shade
resting on his reputation." The next example is the Catholic
question:' /-/ave had sOnae -experience on the evils arising kom
that being- ad open question. Afr,Pitt-made it an open ques-
tion, Lord Liverpool made/ it an open question, and Mr. Can-
ning made it an open question. The blame attached equally to
every party in the State, but I had intimate experience of the
consequences that arose from making that an open question.
Anything more calculated to promote diScord and alienation, and
to render it impossible vigorously to conduct public affairs, or
more pregnant with evil to a Government, than such
a system, cannot be conceived.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
It was my conviction of the evils of that state of things more
than any other consideration, it was not the fear of physical
resistance, but the evils resulting from this state of things,
which induced me to think that it was impossible that
the Government cf Ireland could be conducted with
efficiency while the Roman Catholic question remained
an open question. So far from facilitating the set-
tlement, my firm belief is, that if the advocates of this ques-
tion had asserted their determination to carry through the
measure or to retire front office, my opinion is, that the ques-
tion would have been settled by its original advocates.—
( Hear, hear.) And, therefore, denying to the Right-
Honourable Gentleman that his example is. at all
encouraging, example teaches me from henceforth
that it is a fatal policy to adopt open questions. I believe them
to be destructive of the best interests of the country and every
honourable man ; andi nvite to office every shabby arid corrupt
man—( Cheers —who will condescend to act with colleagues
from whom, upon many important occasions, he differed most
materiallf. Open questions ! It is upon such examples that the
Right Hon. Gentleman can enter into union with the Noble
Lordeeerean • Hot), Gqntke?3,n, with his opiniou,,of.
the Obtliil-Vws, act jriEkt, xo'ila of the Treasuesi :vine
thinks that, this took tbi,woirien ,qiiostiOn ?—( Cheers 5 .14
can you, silo think that Parliaments ought to be reduced 'in
duration—who think that the Septennial Act ought not to
be maintained—hou can you, with any credit to your-
self, co-operate in the administration of public affairs ?
with the Noble Lord who tell his constituents and the world
that he cenSiders those very questions which you profess to
censiler (1 the utmost importance, to be tantamount to the
commencement of a revolution ?—( Great cheering.) The
Noble Lord tells the people of Stroud that changes like these
introduced when the public mind was prepared, and the propo-
sals duly considered, must differ entirely from the proposal
to found a new Reform Bill on the basis of Triennial Par-
liaments, Household Suffrage, and the Vote by Ballot.—
(Hear, hear.) No, but you are for quadrennial parliaments
—triennial parliainents will be the commencement of a revolu-
tion, but quadrennial parliaments are necessary. Household
Suffrage will not only be dangerous in itself, but it will con-
vulse the public mind and lead to dissatisfaction. Did youhear the
lion. Member for Dublin say that no party who refused to admit
the body of the working classes to the exercise of the political
franchise was worthy of the public confidence ? Does the Right
Hon. Gentleman believe, when he has drawn his line of the
101. householders beyond the limits of boroughs, does he believe
that he will stop agitation ?—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
Gentleman was prepared to extend the suffrage • but I think
the Noble Lord will soon convince him that if he perseveres in
his 10/. household franchise,he will stand alone ; but then
there is the Vote by Ballot. The Right Hon. Gentleman is
prepared to support this question, which is to carry all the rest.
flow, I would ask, can the Right Hon. Gentleman, differing,
as he does, from the Noble Lord, meet in the Cabinet and dis-
cuss these subjects ? The Right Hon. Gentleman defends the
sacred duty of agitation. He says that no great measure can
be carried without agitation. Are these eloquent claptraps, I
would ask, to be put forward by him for the per-
pose of deceiving the Radicals behind him ? Does the
Right Honourable Gentleman intend to agitate as a Mem-
ber of the Government? , He believes that the Ballot is es-
sential to the honest exercise of the franchise—he considers
that no great question can be carried without agitation—that
it is essential. Now, is he to agitate for the Ballot while the
Noble Lord agitates against him ? Here is the fi:st result of
open questions. Great questions can only be carried by agita-
tion, but the Ballot will remain an empty sound before the
Right Hon. Gentleman can find support from those around
him. You have admitted these to be your principles—ynu
have told your constituency so—you have avowed to them out
of office and in office, from the proud keep of Windsor—not for
your own justification, but in order to assure your
constituents that you speak from high places. —( Great cheering.)
You told them that the principles you professed when out of
office you still adhered to and rejoiced in, giving them a cordial
assurance not only that you maintained them, but that you
only accepted office in the belief that you would be able much
more effectually to give effect to them.—(Hear, hear.) The
constituency of Edinburgh upon this said, we aro sure of the
Ballot and Short Parliaments, for from the Palace of the
Sovereign we have received the assurance that all
the power of office shall be exerted for the maintainancc of
principles which our representative possessed %then out of
office. What answer does the :tight Hon. Baronet mean to
give to his constituency for the course lie has adopted ? Why,
he will say, True, I promised them, but I gave them no
pledge.—( Cheers. ) I pronlised 'you that I would steadily
adhere to those principles ; I told you that I accepted office in
order to give me an opportunity to carry out those
nott
tt;hoeztie co.utLtr(el,egpi them,rsaateuhr be
yu
oti
sut
ao?
principles, but pledges I gave you none. (Hear, hear.)
e
ill
You returned me to Parliament. I said I would adhere to
What would the electors of
subordinate duty.—( Laughter.)
ayotttlerndi
he
Edinburgh say Laug'eter, )
principles.
tileswoefntniinytodoepfliacretwm,
classical for. reproach
they not addressa
you in the lan.
in prose—(Laughter)—sill
of Dido.—(Laughter.)
t fides."
" Nusquain tu a
and cheers.) Nay, will they not go on with the
(Laughter
euotat ion ?
(11car,(1117aaru,gahntedrI)a—ughter)—or, if too

and bearing on its
laughter.) And what
" eject= littore eg•ntem
Excepi, et rogni demens, in parte locavi."
Do you forget your pledges ? Are the; eto be no
fruits of our mutual loves ?—( Roars of laughter,) No small bill,
is
set aattmoieeesd
yywoouitttrrhapti
,hsrev
re
liemtraLgi
likeness?—(.Much
eonf e
sys paternity, ty,
" Non Inec in fcedera vc n:."