The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-01 00:00:00

religious opinioe., and the free and full performance of their
I religious duties. But I must draw a distinction between
penal laws directed against religious opinions and Parliamen-
I tary legisia!ion directed against foreign .usurpation.—(Hear,
hear.) I know not whether the Pope and his emissaries
have violated the law or not, but Lord John Ruesell, in his
celebrated letter, declared his intention to ascertain from the
law officers of the Crown whether the law had been violated,
and stated that if it had not been violated he would propose
no amendment of the law. I think the act of the Pope, in
itself of minor importance, was rendered infinitely more im-
portant by the insulting tone and offensive manner in which
it was, in the first instance, introduced—announced as the
act of an authority claiming jurisdiction over the realm of
England, and assuming to interfere with the undoubted
rights and prerogatives of the Crown and with the indepen-
dence of Parliament. I think that was a proceeding which
it was impossible, consistently with the dignity of the Crown
and of Parliament, to pass over—( War, hear)—but I cannot
say I approve of the mode in which it has been sought to
meet that insult. I cannot but think that the measure
which has been introduced by the Government bears upon
the face of it the marks of passion and of haste rather than
of mature and calm consideration ; and for my own part I con-
fess, if that were to be the extent of the legislation contem-
plated by the advisers of the Crown, I think with my Noble
Friend above me that it would be better not to legislate at
all than to legislate ineffectually. A string feeling of indig-
nation has been raised on the part of the Protestant portion
of the community, vast indignation has been excited among
the Roman Catholics, and after all a measure is introduced
which will, I fear, be practically altogetlltr inoperative. If
the law had not been violated, I think the offence would have
been more aptly met by a resolution of both Houses of Par•
liament, declaring in the first instance the unconstitutional
character of the aggression, not recognizing the validity of
titles which were assumed to be conferred, and declaring that
in virtue of those titles the holders or assumed holders of
them had neither precedence nor authority of any kind
within this realm. My Noble Friend above me may not
feel disposed to go so tar as this. I think the Bill of the
Government does not touch the real danger. I think it
touches the insult, and it touches it ineffectually; but the
real danger is this—the gradual growth and encroachment
of the power of the Pope, and of the prelates acting
under his authority, in interfering with matters not purely
and strictly religious—( Hear hear)—and in assuming
to themselves powers which, if not in violation of the law
of the land, are at variance with that law. While I contend
that religious freedom ought to be strictly guaranteed, I say,
on the other hand, that Papal aggression ought to be as
strenuously resisted now as it was resisted in the days of our
ancestors—( Hear, hear)—but I frankly say that lam not
prepared to legislate upon this subject at the present moment.
I do not think the amount of information before us as to the
facts of the case justifies us in legislating, and this is a
question of all ottvrs upon which, if you do legislate, you
must legislate deliberately, upon full information, and in such
a manner as to make your legislation effective. I believe the
law is in a most anomalous state on this subject. The re-
cent amendments of the law have left, in this case, the ab-
surdity that it is declared high treason to introduce a bull or
rescript from Rome, yet, though the offence is declared to
be treason, the penalty is altogether taken away, and the
law is thus rendered wholly inoperative. There are various
assumptions of power in this country on the part of Roman
Catholics with which it is right that Parliament and the
country should be acquainted. For example, what effect
will the fact of the Roman Catholics bishops being enabled
to meet in synod have upon the binding character of their
enactments? Do they, by acting in an organized body, ob-
tain an authority recognised by all Roman Catholics as a
legislative authority, which when they are not so acting
they do not possess? If so, the question becomes of im•
portance, not whether there shall be a Roman Catholic
Bishop of Birmingham, but whether there shall be in this
country an imperium in imperio, a body of men acting in
synod, and passing laws which, enforced by the most awful
of all penalties—the spiritual censures of the Church, have
a power over a vast portion of the Roman Catholic popu-
lation superior to that of the law of the land? In 1829
the Roman Catholic Relief Act introduced various restric-
tions which were called at the time securities for Pro-
testants. That measure required that registers should be
kept of the members of all religious communities, and sub-
jected to banishment persons who were nut so registered.
Is that a power which it is necessary to possess ? If it is
necessary to possess it, why is it not exercised ? If it
is not intended to be exercised, why does it remain upon
your statute-book? We must, since 1829, have connived at
the gradual encroachments of the Roman Catholic Church.
We have shut our eyes to her encroachments on the law, but
we have shut our et' es intentionally. We should take care
that there shall be no connivance at such encroachments,—
that there shall be no alternative between that which we
prohibit and that which we distinctly allow. I think it un-
just and unwise to prohibit by law that which you mean
to permit in practice. I conceive that there are grave
questions depending upon the position of Roman Catholics
in this country with regard to the rights of their own
Church, to the disposition of property, and the manner in
which trust property is held for Roman Catholic purposes.
I think it is a subject for inquiry how religious houses of va-
rious descriptions are carried on in this country; and it is a
grave question whether all religious houses should not be
subjected to the power of visitation, in order that it may be
ascertained that no persons are retained within them con-
trary to the law of the land. But upon the whole of this
question relative to the position of the Roman Catholic popu-
lation, with regard to this State and to a foreign power, I
believe that Parliament and the country are equally ill-
informed. If it be necessary that Roman Catholics should
have communications upon purely spiritual questions with
Rome, I say, do not shut your eyes to the fact that these
communications take place; permit such communications
as may be necessary for purely religious purposes, but at
the same time effectually prevent any proceedings which
interfere with the civil rights of her Majesty's subjects.
This is a subject which ought to be dealt with upon a great
scale, temperately, deliberately, and upon full information;
and the loss of one, or even of two years, if it were
necessary, would be an evil of little magnitude
compared with the evil of dealing hastily and ineffectually,
passionately, and in an irritating manner, with this great
and important question, the chief evils and dangers of
which you leave wholly untouched by your legislation.
I have recommended that, in-both Houses of Parliament
inquiries should take place as to the actual relation
in which the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen stand
towards foreign powers and their own prelacy. I would
advise that this subject should be fully investigated, the
present anomalies of the law really exposed, and amend-
ments of the law suggested for the consideration of Parlia •
ment ; and, though I know the difficulties of dealing with
such a subject, 1 believe it would not be impracticable to in-
troduce measures which should secure this country from the
interference and usurpation of a foreign power, and at the
same time should not take from, but add to. the religious
freedom of our Roman Catholic fellow-snbjects, and place
the Roman Catholic laity in a condition far more satisfac-
tory to themselves than that in which they are at present—
under the uncontrolled domination of the bishops and
clergy of their Church. I feel, my Lords, how greatly 1
ought to apologize for having detained you at this length.
I have failed in the task which the favour of my Sovereign
assigned me; but I have been placed in a position of great
difficulty, as, indeed, difficulties exist on all sides, arising out
of the three or four complicated questions to which I have
alluded, that keep apart men between whom, upon other ques-
tions, there may be comparatively little difference of opinion.
However little authority I may pretend to, I was anxious
that my views should not be misinterpreted, and I trust your
Lordships will not think that I have unduly trespassed upon
your time in making a full and frank declaration of the
course of policy which, if I had been called to office, I
should have ventured to recommend. I trust you will be of
opinion that on the one hand I have not been unduly ambi-
tious of rower, and that, on the other hand, you will think
that I have neither unduly shrunk from responsibility nor
pertinaciously persevered in attempting to form a Govern-
ment when I saw it was impracticable. And I hope, above
all, that you will not see in any part of the course I have
pursued anything which would be discreditable to my mo-
tives, or derogatory from that fair character which I hold to
be the most inestimable possession of any statesman.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE.—I will not follow the
Noble Lord through the various topics to which he has
alluded in the course uf his speech, but I am desirous of cor-
recting some misapprehension with respect to my description
of what pa-acd between the Noble Lord and her Majesty.
What I said was, that the Noble Lord having been sent for by
her Majes' y, and having been supposed to have been sent for
to undertake the task of forming an Administration, the
Noble Lord had left her Majesty, stating that he was
not then prepared to undertake that task ; and, if I am
not much mistaken, I laid a cousiderable emphasis on the
word " then," being aware that that did not apply to the
impossibility of undertaking the task under other circum-
stances. That was the state of things—the Noble Lord was
not then prepared ;T and, in consequence of his not being
then prepared, my Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) was sent
for, who would not have bn sent for if the Noble Lord had
been so prepared; and, myee Lords, upon that I thought it
would have been travelling out of my part if I attempted to
do that for the Noble Lord which he would soon after-
wards have the opportunity of doing for himself, namely—
on behalf of the Noble Lord, to develop and explain what
were the particular circumstances which then prevented him
from undertaking the task of forming an Administration. I
am extremely glad he has bad the opportunity now. I was
aware that opportunity would soon afterwards present itself;
but I am bound to say the Noble Lord has availed himself
of it in a manner and in a spirit, and with a manliness of
purpose, that does honour to him in the explanation he has
made.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, having set that
matter right, I must refer for one moment to one most
important topic of the speech of the Noble Earl who spoke
immediately after me. In the course of the explanation by
that Noble Earl he has thought it necessary to advert, at
more length than I should have expected he would have
done on this occasion, not only to the circumstance—
which is quite correct—of the difference of opinion on the
subject of the Roman Catholic Bull having been the chief, if
not the only difference, which has occurred between him and
my Noble Friend Lord J. Russell ; but, in stating that
difference, he bas proceeded at some length to characterize
the measure proposed by my Noble Friend in the other
House of Parliament. I could not sit still in this place
and hear that measure so characterized without protesting
against the justice of the character he has given to that
measure. I am distinctly anxious to state, that whereas
the Noble Earl has described that measure as one of a penal
character against the Roman Catholic religion,—l am not
sure be did not introduced the word "persecution," a word
which I hope was uttered in an ueguarded moment, but I
have only to state it was as far from the thought of my
Noble Friend,--I am sure it was as far from my thought as
it was from that of the Noble Earl,--to introduce or to carry
any measure the effect of which should be to direct
penal consequences against the exercise of the Roman
Catholic religion. I feel, and those who have thought with
me feel, that such a measure might be necessary under the
circumstances of that insult which has been offered to the
Crown and to the people of this country—to pass some
enactment vindicating the honour of the Crown and the in-
dependence of the country. I nevertheless think we ought
to continue and tolerate the Roman Catholic religion, and
that to interfdre with its exercise by enactment would be a
gross injustice and absurdity, and attended with the worst
of consequences.—(Hear. hear.) I will not now enter into
the provisions of that Bill, but I will say that the graund
upon which it was introduced was simply that of protectina
this country against foreign influence (Hear, hear)--
that foreign influence making use of the Roman Catholic '
religion as an instrument - (Hear, hear)—and the intention
with which—l an not saying whether properly executed or
not—but the intention with which the measure was intro-
duced was to protect the Protestants and Roman Catholics—
(Hear)—the Protestan': laity and Roman Catholic laity_
against intervention on the part of the Pope which had been
shown to be mischievous and dangerous before, and might
be mischievous and dangerous again. - (Hear.) That is the
distinction I wish to make ; far from having at any time
wished to debar persons professing the Roman Catholic re-
ligion in England or in Ireland from any of their privileges,
or any of those powers which are necessary to that exercise,
I shall feel it my duty at all times to facilitate that exercise,
and to protect that religion.—(Hear.) But, at the same
time that I do this, I feel it a duty incumbent en the Crown
and Parliament to defend the prerogative of the Crown when
that is openly attacked, and to maintain the independence of
the country from foreign authority, dominion, or influence
whatever,—(Hear, hear.) whenever a dizmaion on that

subject shall take place, I wish it should take place with that
protest on my part of what I am sure was the object of the
late Government, and of a great majority of both Houses of
Parliament to resent an insuq, on the Crown, and in no way
to interfere with the exercise of religion—(Hear, hear)—
and I may state here, that independently of that disposition
which my Noble Friend late at the head of the Govern-
ment naturally felt in his intercourse with the Noble Earl
and his Right Honourable Friend on this subject, he was
pre;:ared, independently of that wish, to make such altera-
tion in that Bill which, while it attained its object of a
distinct declaration against that foreign invasion, should at
the same time remove any misapprehension which might
possibly be entertained in this country or in Ireland, as to
its possible effect. on the exercise of the Roman Catholic re-
ligion and the full enjoyment of every Roman Catholic pri-
vilege by those authorities by whom alone the Roman Ca.
tholic religion can be carried on. Ido not wish to go into
the various topics to which the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Stanley) has referred, but my Noble Friend near me re•
minds me of one point upon which it is necessary to cornet
a misapprehension, a misbelief rather, on the part of the
Noble Lord. The Noble Lord said there was strong reason
to suppose that, independently of the want of support of the
other House of Parliament, other considerations had pre-
vailed with the late advisers of her Majesty in the course they
had taken of resigning. I beg to say it was entirely owing
to that want of support, as evinced, not upon one occasion,
or of an accidental vote which took place at an early hour
in another House—it was a general absence of that support
in the other House, and no difference of opinion amongst our-
selves, which induced us to take that course.—(Hear.)
Lord STANLEY—What I said was, I could n it divest
myself of the opinion that, independently of the two circum-
stances referred to, namely,—the smallness of the majority on
Mr. Disraeli's motion, and the subsequent defeat on Mr.
Locke King's motion, there were other questions upon which
the difficulties were so great,—the fear of opposition from
their own supporters was so great that, independently of
those two questions of Papal aggression and the Budget, it
had largely entered into their consideration in inducing the
Noble Lord to resign,—an event that took place so suddenly
that, if I am not mistaken)) the Noble Marquis was out of
town at the time; the Noble Earl near him, if I am not mis-
taken, received the information while he was in the City that
the Cabinet of which he was a member no longer existed—
(A laugh)—and the Noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal, al-
though a near relative of the Noble Lord, was as little ac-
quainted with the intention of the Cabinet as he was with the
Pope's intention—(Great laughter)—••and that the Noble
Lord, when he wrote to the Qaeen announcing his intention
to resign, had not consulted his Noble Relative.—(Hear).
After a few words from the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in
which he merely stated that he was out of town et the time
referred to by the Noble Lord,
Their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 28.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
The interior of the House presented the same appear-
ance as on Monday evening; the benches below and
above the bar were crowded with Hon Members, as were
also the side galleries.
NEW MEMBERS. _ _ _

Col. GILPIN took the oaths and his seat for Bedford-
shire.
Sir G. TYLER also took the oaths and his seat for
Glamorgautlire.
METROPOLITAN MARKETS BILL.
Mr. CHILLERS moved the second reading of this
Bill.
Alderman SIDNEY moved that the Bill be read a
second time this day six months.
After a short conversation the House was cleared for
a division, but subsequently the Bill was postponed until
this thy week.

PETITIONS.
Colonel FREESTUN presented a petition from the
Catholics ot Weymouth against the Papal Aggres-
sion Bill.
Mr. FAGAN also presented several similar petitions.
Lord ARUNDEL and SURREY presented 40 peti-
tions from the secular clergy of the Roman Catholic
Church in this country, and several petitions from other
parties, against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
Mr. MONSELL presented several petitions to the
same effect.
Mr. SULLIVAN also presented similar petitions.
Mr. STUART presented a petition praying that the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill might not be extended to
Scotland.
Mr. ROCHE presented a great number of petitions
from the county of Cork against the Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill.
Mr. HENLEY presented a petition from a place in
Oxfordshire against the admission of Jews into Parlia-
ment.
Mr. HASTIE presented a petition from Glasgow in
favour of the abolition of the window•tax.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented a large number of pe-
titions from places in Ireland against the Ecclesiastical
Titles Btll, and several petitions from the Dublin news-
paper proprietors, praying for the repeal ot the duty on
paper.
Mr. KEOGH presented a petition from Meath against
the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. Petitions to the same
effect were presented by Sir Joshua Walmaloy, from
Bolton; by Sir E. Buxton, from Essex; Mr. Sadlier,
from Carlow; and Mr. Scholefield, from Birmingham.
Mr. W. WlLLrems and Mr. B. OsuoaNE presented
petitions praying for the repeal of the paper duty.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER and Colonel SIBTHORP presented
petitions from places in Lincolnshire complaining of
agricultural distress.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Seabam against
the Mercantile Marine Bill; also seven petitions against
the Bible monopoly.
A great number of petitions were presented against
the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

MINISTERIAL CRISIS.

STATEMENT OF LORD J. RUSSELL.

Shortly after five o'clock, Hon. Members who had
notices of motion having postponed them, the orders of
.he day were then called on.
On the motion for the second reading of the Ecclesi-
astical Titles Assumption Bill,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL. amid the most profound
silence, rose and said—Sir, in moving the postpone-
ment of this order of the day, I will take the
opportunity of stating to the House what has occurred
since I asked them on Monday to adjourn to this
day. Before Ido so I think it necessary to
notice a contradiction to a statement which I
made on Monday last.—(Great cheering.) I then
stet( d that Lord Stanley having been sent for by the
Queen had stated to her Majesty that he was not then
prepa•ed to form a Government, and that I
was then required to repair to Buckingham
Palace. I received a contradiction to that statement
in terms very peremptory, and in a manner
wit very courteous. I feel it due to my own honour to
state, in the first place, that nothing was further from my
intention than to misrepresent the conduct of Lord
Stanley. For that Noble Lord I have the greatest possible
respect. I have fought in Parliamentary matters side by
side with him —(Cheers)—l have fought face to face
against bim.—(Cheers) In all times and in every
situation I have had occasion to admire his
spirit, his courage, and his honour.—(Great cheering.)
Therefore I should be sorry indeed if anything which
fell from me did not give a correct representation of
what that Noble Lord had stated.—(Cheers.) The
House will recollect that it was not then my duty to
go into detail, not to relate particular circumstances, and
not, above all, to narrate what had come to my know-
ledge of conversation, but yet to state clearly
what appeared to me to be the general result of
all that had occurred.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite ne-
cessary that I should sate a reason why, after having
once taken leave of my Sovereign, I was again required
to repair to the palace ; that it was necessary is obvious
from the various statements circulated—statements,
some of them previously to the Hon. Gentleman's con-
tradiction, and some of them subsequent—(Cheers)
—which represented that Noble Lord as anxious to form
a Government, and myself as having endeavoured to
force myself into the presence of my Sovereign, when
that Noble Lord was engaged in that task.—(Cheers.)
And what, Sir, then occurred? His Royal Highness
Prince Albert wrote to me a letter on Saturday after-
noon, and by the permission of her Majesty, and also
of his Royal Highness, I will now read it to the
House.—(Hear, hear.)
" Lord Stanley has, after a conversation with
her Majesty, declined to undertake the formation
of a Government at present, until it should be clear no
other Government could be formed. The Queen has
sent for Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham, and
wishes to see you immediately."

—(Hear.) I could, Sir, do no other, on receiving that
letter, than conclude that Lord Stanley had declined for
the present to form a Government—(Loud cheers)—
until it was found that no other Government could be
formed ; and I ask whether there was any misre-
presentation in stating, two days after receiving
this letter, that Lord Stanley was not prepared
at that time to form a Government—l used
the words "not then prepared?"—(Loud cheers.)
Sir, every ono who has been admitted to the presence
of her Majesty is aware of the courtesy, of the memory
and of the precise truth of everything which falls
from her (Loud cheers) —but, Sir, though I
received from her Majesty an account of what
passed at her interview with Lord Stanley, I do
not rest solely on her Majesty's statement, but I rest on
the statement of the interview which Lord Stanley sent
to her Majesty in the course of the same evening, and of
which she has permitted me to read extracts
which bear on the point in question. And let me ob-
serve, that if I state these particulars to the House,
it is in consequence of the contradiction of the
Honourable Gentleman opposite.—(Great cheering.)
Now he asked whether those extratAi did not
bear out his statement that Lord Stanley was not pre.
pared to form a Government ? Lord Stanley
thus reports to the Queen what he had stated in her pre-

SOLCO

" After stating to your Majesty the position of the
three main parties into which the House of Commons is
divided, Lord Stanley observed, that the policy of the
present Administration had met with the general ap-
proval and support of the most distinguished men of the
party which adhered to the late Sir R. Peel, and that
they had never yet met with a defeat from Lord Stan-
ley'a political friends; that a very important member
of that party, Sir J. Graham, had publicly deolared his
opinion of the necessity of closing their ranks to resist
the presumed policy of Lord Stanley's friends; and as

your Majesty had been pleased to inform him that no
communication had been made to any one previous to
that with which your Majesty honoured him, he ven-
tured to suggest that, in the first instance, your Majesty
should ascertain whether it were not -possible to
strengthen the present Government, or partially to
reconstruct it by a combination with those who, not
now holding office, concurred in the opinions of
those who do, and professed their opinion of the
necessity of union; that, failing such a combination,
a portion of that third party might be willing to
combine with Lord Stanley, whose difficulties in such a
case would be greatly diminished; that if it should ap-
pear that both of these arrangements were impracticable,
and if personal considerations stood in the way of the
formation of a Government of those whose opinions ap
peared to prevail in the House of Commons, Lord Stan-
ley, not undertaking the extreme difficulties which he
would have to encounter, would, if honoured with your
Majesty's confidence, prefer any responsibility, and even
the chance of failure and loss of reputation, to that of
leaving your Majesty and the country without a Go-
vernment; and he added, that he believed an Adminis-
tration formed under such circumstances would be more
likely to meet with support, even from moderate oppo-
nents of their views, than one which should be hasdlv
formed without giving thee to show the practicability of
a different arrangement."
I ask the House whether these passages do not bear out
my statement that Lord Stanley was not then prepared
to form a Government?—(Hear, hear.) At the close of
his letter Lord Stanley says:—
" He feels highly honoured by being allowed to submit
to your Majesty unreservedly his whole views, and
while he would be sorry that this paper should fell into
any other hands than those of your Majesty, he has that
entire confidence in Lord John Russell'i honour, that
he is sure no ungenerous use will to made of any portion
of it which your Majesty may see fit to communicate
to him."

I have the gratification of being able to state, that after
I made my statement in this House Lord Stanley, while
he informs me that he does not agree in that statement,
does not wish to qualify in the least degree the least
portion of his letter. It is satisfactory to me to be able
to make this statement to the House, and to say that
the extracts I have read to the House have been read
with the entire consent of Lord Stanley; indeed, Lord
Stanley wished them to be read in any statement
which I might make.—(Hear, hear.) I have now to
state, that having been desired by her Majesty to con-
struct an Administration, and at her Majesty's re-
quest I obtained interviews with both Lord
Aberdeen and Sir James Graham, and I feel it
right to say, that no personal consideration
stood in the way of the formation of a Government com-
posed of those whose opinions appeared to prevail in the
House of Commons. If Lord Aberdeen and Sir James
Graham bad concurred in the formation of a Govern-
ment, I believe that no personal consideration would
have stood in their way._(Hear.) With respect to
the several points of public importance on which we de-
liberated, although there was net any perfect
agreement, yet there did not seem to be such a
diversity of opinion as might not by further commu-
nication have been removed. There was one question—
the Papal aggression—on which it appeared impos-
sible that we could agree. I think it quite necessary
to proceed with that Bill.— (Loud cheers.) Lord Aber-
deen told me that he thought respecting the late
aggression on this country no legislation at all was ne-
cessary. Upon that point there was so wide a difference
of opinion that it was evident that no Government could
possibly be formed by the coalition of such parties.—
(Hear, hear.) I again repaired to Buckingham Palace
and informed her Majesty of the difficulty which bad oc3
cuffed, and laid before her a full statement of the state
of affairs. The effect of that information to the Queen
was that her Majesty's desire led to a communication
with the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member fur Ripon
(Sir J. Graham), with the hope that I might be able,
with his assistance, to reconstruct the Government by
such an infusion of new strength as would give force and
efficiency to the Ministry.—(Hear, hear.) I was led to
this course by old associations, by the' recollection of the
Political aptitude which the Right Hon. Baronet so emi-
nently possesses, and further still, if I may be permitted
to state so much to the House, by the ties of old and
long-continued friendship. We were agreed on most of
the great topics of public affairs, and I did think that if
an interview was fairly conducted we, might come to
some general accord upon subjects On which a difference
of feeling prevailed.—(Hear, hear.) The interview was
abortive, and I was therefore again obliged to re-
sign the commission for the formation of a Government
with which her Majesty hai been pleased to honour
me.—(Hear, hear.) Yesterday evening I was informed
that her Majesty had received from Lord Stanley
the resignation of his commission, which I have read
to the House. Placed under that difficulty, her Ma-
jesty has, most wisely, as I think, sent for an old
friend of the Crown, who is not more eminent for
his distinguished services abroad and for the
glory of his military achievements—(Loud and
long continued cheering) thin he is for
his wisdom in civil affairs, and his respect for the
constitution of the country (the Duke of Welling-
ton).—(Repeated cheers from all sides of the House.)
I trust that I have said enough to assure the House that
the representation of the Right Hononourable Gen-
tleman the Member for Bucks (fir. Disraeli), that
Lord Stanley was prepared to form a Government
WAS incorrect.—(Hear and cheers; and cries of " Oh.")
With this statement I conclude the narrative of what
has occurred within the last few days—(Cheers)—but
I cannot omit this opportunity of refuting the assertion
that I was ready to take the helm in a time
of prosperity, and to resign the Ministry as
soon as the Government was placed in a state
of difficulty. To that assertion I respond that
I should not have deemed the adverse division come to
the other night any sufficient reason for a resignation of
the Government if I had thought that it could be carried
on successfully.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) If I did not
shrink from the difficulties of the country when
3,000,000 of people were in a state of distress, it was not
likely that I should shrink from them now; but I sap
it was useless to proceed when office could only be re-
tained at the risk of power which would bo
useful to the country, and the loss of that character
which was honourable to its possessor.—(Hear, hear.)
When the directors of the Bank of England came to my
Right Honourable Friend to ask us to suspend the law,
and run the risk of an indemnity from Parliament, I
might have shrunk from the difficulties of the time;
when, at a later period, the whole of Europe was
shaken with revolutions from oneeind to the other, and
when there was every prospect of the treaties which
bound Europe together, and preserved the peace of
the world, being dissolved, we did not shrink
from obr parts, nor did we do so even
when in Ireland large bodies of people were preparing
to organize a rebellion.—(oh, eh!) We might then
have shrunk from the difficulties of the period;
but to suppose that we should do so
now, when all those troubles have passed
away, when commerce is flour Ashing, when the people are
prosperous, and when the only difficulty at the Exchequer
is, that it is rather more flourishing than is convenient to
the Chancellor—(Ajlaugh)—is quite ridiculous.—(Hear.)
But, Sir, I wish to state some of the opinions which
hold now with regard to the three questions which have
occupied the public mind, and engaged Parliamentary
attention a good deal of late.—(Hear, hear.) One of
the most important of those questions is free trade
and the free import of corn.—(Hear and 'cheers.)
Now, Sir, I take no credit whatever for the establish-
ment of thepresent law upon that subject, for the system
which the Government of Lord Melbourne proposed was
a system of a different kind. It was a system which was
based upon a moderate duty on corn, and a differential duty
on sugar and other articles. That plan was rejected by
the House of Commons, and in 1845 the circumstances
of the country having in the meantime undergone a
great change and assumed a different aspect
Sir Robert Peel pronouuced that at no dis-
tant period the corn-laws must be repealed,
and at the same time—in the month of Novem-
ber—without any communication with my party,
I published my opinions that the time was come when
eaßr
the corn-laws could no longer be maintained. The only
safe course then was to proceed to their abolition,
and Sir Robert Peel gave the honour Of the
change which afterwards followed to the Hon. Member
Noe,, Sir, I think
for
Isthdeue in West Riding.—
pa
a
Hon. Member for the West Riding, but I can't altogether
say that I claim no credit, but the smallest amount
is due for the part I took in effecting the change.—
RgreiCt to r,
Sir lihea.o)ber Nt
o Peel and to the
(Hear, hear.) That change was effected in 1846, and I
believe its effects have been most beneficial to this
country.—(Cheers.) I believe that the great mass of
the people of this country are enjoying benefits
from that change which they could not otherwise have
obtained.--(Hear, hear.) When the reins of power fell
into our hands it was our endeavour to proceed in that
policy ; and on two very important questions,
namely, in the case of foreign sugar and the
navigation-laws, we succeeded in carrying measures in
conformity with our present commercial policy.—
(Hear, hear.) I rejoice that wo were able to carry
these two changes into effect with the willing
concurrence of the two Houses of Parliament, for
it appears to me that while we are endeavouring to
carry such changes into effect, we should, as far as
possible, do so without disturbing the institutions of
the country.—(Cheers.) I will now proceed to the next
subject, and that is the Bill relating to the
assumption of power in this country by a foreign eccle-
siastical power,—(Hear, hear.) T, a6ill °pour ID the