The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SA:TtIII,DAY _EVENIfqG, JULY 26, 165 e

(Lord Palmerston) is concerned, does the utmost credit ro-
his spirit and promptitude. (Hear.) There is on the part
of the house great willingness to discharge its functions of
supply. Whatever money is wanted for the public service
is cheerfully granted. If the noble lord, when at war,
wants troops, they are given to him. If he is engaged in
negotiations and requires forbearance, it is yielded with
equal readiness. Whether be prosecutes war or makes
treaties, he can count upon the support of the house ; but
when you come to the other functions of a Minister in a
legislative assembly, I say that the measures of Govern-
ment, when prepared, are not intrusted to such a confiding
majority as can only exist in this house when founded
upon traditional connection or identity of principle. The
noble lord and his colleagues, when they introduce mea
surei upon these great subjects, are never sure that those
measures will succeed. There are two consequences of the
most injurious character which result from that circurn-
sta.nce. It is a great evil that Ministers who think it ne-
cessary to legislate upon subjects of paramount importance
should fail in their attempts at legislation ; but there is
another evil inevitably consequent upon this to which I
attribute much of the present disaster. The moment that
a Government is habituated to defeat, the moment that its
members find that the chances are that the measures which
they propose will not succeed, that moment their measures
cease to be prepared with that scrupulous exactitude, that
fineness, that finish and maturity of preparation, which
character i-e the measures of a Government which upon the
introduction of a measure to Parliament feels all the respon-
sibility of legislation. (Hear.) Thus it happens that it ends
in the Ministry so circumstanced obtaining momentary po-
pularity or making a transient reputation—if reputation
you can call it—by dealing with a variety of subjects, so
that the country may say, Hare is a Government of men
of business; see what they deal with ! These are the men
that we wanted. They are going to construct a court of
appeal. All the questions which 300 years have not solved
are about to receive their solution from these practical
men. The law of di eorce is to be reformed. The law of
matrimony is to be improved. The law of partnership is
to be adapted to an enlightened age and the wants of
great commercial community. All those great subjects to
elide I have adverte i at the commencement of my obser-
vations, and with which the thought of the country has
long been engaged, are at last to find a settlement and h
solution from men of business, who, irrespective of party
consideration, are determined to show what can be dune by
those who are animated only by a desire to pass wise and
satisfactory measures. When Parliament met, it was an-
nounced by a high—although anonymous—authority, that
a new era had set in in the history of the English Parlia-
ment ; that struggles for power and place were to cease,
end that we were to have a body of Ministers who were
essentially practical men—men of business, who were to
deal with the difficult questions which had twilled all pre-
ceding Ministries. We were told that " measures, not
'nen," was to be, in future, the principle of our political
life ; and very shortly after that we had an illustration of
the new system in the introduction of the Partnership Bill
of the right hon. gentleman. (A. laugh.) But, Sir, in what
does all this end ? After six months of idle phantoms and
of empty visions it is no longer "measures, not men," but,
unfortunately, men without measures. (Laughter.) If it
be true—and I cannot believe that, when pondered over,
there will be many who will doubt its truth -that this un-
fortunate state of affairs arises from the Government being
unable to command a Parliamentary majority, what is the
remedy which is before us? In the first place, I shall be met
with an objection which is perhaps not much raised iu this
house, but which is heard in every part of the country, alike
in the saloon and in the market-place—s" this is all the con-
sequence of the Reform Bill." (Hoar, hear.) One of my
friends near me says, " Hear, hear," and that shows how
popular and how plausible is this idea. Well, is the Re-
form Bill the cause of this state of affairs, because, when
there is a great difficulty, there are always many specious
explanations alosA„ and the question is, although specious,
are they true ? It is 24 3 ears since the Reform Bill came
into operation, and certainly during 14 years out of those
21 you have had the affairs of this country administered
by Ministries of almost every shade of opinion, who have
commanded large and compact majorities. Lord Grey,
who represented the high Whigs, had not only a large and
commanding majority, but a majority of which the only
fault was that it was too large. Lord Melbourne, who re-
presented what was called" Whig Radicalism," but which
in more courteous parlance we will now call " Liberalism,"
Lord Melbourne for five years carried on the affairs of this
country with a sufficient majority, even in a Parliament
which had been called together by his rival. Certainly the
6th and 7th years of his administration were not distin-
guished by great strength, but that was attributable not
so much to the want of a majority as to a circumstance
which I am sure the friends of Lord Melbourne have now
lived long enough to regret—that he clung to office beyond
the time at which Parliament would tolerate it. When he
left office Sir R. Peel appealed to the country as a Tory
and Conservative Minister. Was there then no command-
ing majority ? There was a considerable and ample majo-
rity, which allowed Sir Robert Peel to carry on affairs ;
and, therefore, it does not appear to me that there is any
truth whatever in the popular statement that the Reform
Bill is the root of all this evil. (Hear, hear.) But,
then, it may be said that this state of things is to be
attributed to the fact that parties are broken up. It is a
favourite topic to talk of the " dislocation" of parties.
" Parties," they say, " no longer exist because there are no
longer distinctive principles among public men." That also
is a very current opinion ; but is it true ? (Hear.) For
the interest of the country and for our own honour, let us
pause a moment to inquire whether it is true. Sir, I shall
not venture to make any observations on hon. gentlemen
who are members of this house. It is my happiness to
think that I have personal friends on both sides of the
house, and the question is of too great importance to de-
pend upon the opinions of individual members on either
side. But, if I look to the country, if I look to society in
the genuine sense of the phrase, I mean to the society of
classes in this country, I do not find that parties are ex-
tinct. (Hear, hear.) When I listen to men who have
paramount influence with great masses of the community,
I do not find in their conversation anything to lead me to
the conclusion that distinctive parties have ceased. I find
two great classes and bodies of opinion which I think I
may fairly represent by epithets which, though not very
happy nor very precise, have yet passed into popular ac-
ceptation—the epithets Conservative and Liberal. I hold
that these are two classes of opinion which are perfectly
distinct, and in most instances entirely opposed the one to
the other. Let me, that I may the more clearly explain
my meaning, briefly advert to some points in which I think
that that distinction is particularly manifest. I wish to
speak with perfect respect of both classes, for each is repre-
sented in this country by numerous bodies of men. Each
is supported by numbers, intelligence, property, and, in a
word, by "respectability" iu the true and legitimate mean-
ing of that phrase. But the dissimilarity of these opinions
is very perceptible. For example, I hold that to be a COD-
servative principle which regards the Parliamentary settle-
ment of 1832 as a satisfactory settlement. I hold that to
be a conservative principle which, without any blind or
bigoted adherence to the doctrine on all possible oocasious,
believes that tampering with the suffrage is a great evil
to the State. (Ironicalcheersfrom the Ministerial benches.)
I believe I am right in maintaining that that is a conser-
vative principle which holds that the due influence of pro-
perty in the exercise of the suffrage is salutary and bene-
ficial. (Ironical cheers from the same quarter.) I
think it is a conservative principle which holds that
in any representative scheme the influence of landed
property ought to be sensibly felt. I hold that to be
a conservative principle which would maintain in•
violate the union between Church and State—(a deri-
sive cheer from Mr. Hadfield), and which would not only
preserve but expand the ecclesiastical institutions of ties
country. I hold that to be a conservative principle which
maintains that the establishment of the Church should be
respected, and that the Church itself should not be the
stipendiary of the civil power. I hold that to be a consei-
vetive principle which would maintain the Established
Church in Ireland—(ironical cheers from the Ministerial
benches)—believing that it is perfectly reconcileable with
respect for the rights and privileges of all classes of her
Majesty's subjects in that kingdom. I hold that to be a
conservative principle which would cherish and protect
all hereditary influences, because they are opposed to a
crude centralisation, and because they are the source of a
power at once beneficent and economical. I hold that to be
a conservative principle which would respect venal- ,ble
corporations—(laughter from the same quarters)—and up-
hold a free magistracy throughout tho couutry. The ironi-
cal cheers of the hon. gentlemen opposite convince me that
I am right in this estimate, and that, there is a body in
this country which, though I had scarcely expected it, is
even represented in this house, and which holds opinions
exactly the reverse of what I have stated. (" Hear' from
the Ministerial benches.) The cheers from the Miuisteri
benches show that there is in the country, and even in this
house, a body who believe that the Parliamentary settle-
ment of 1832 ought not to be maintained, seeing that it
arrests the progress of a cause in the advancement of which
they feel an interest—a body who believe that what we
regard as the wholesome influence of property on the suf-
frage ought to be prevented—a body who, instead of che-
rishing and encouraging, would check and repress the netu-
ral influence of lanced propertyon Parliamentary represen
tation. I have no fear of misrepresenting the opinions of
hon. gentlemen opposite when I say that there are among
them those who look with suspicion on the union between
Church and State—who, if they bow telt, do so becauseit is
already established—who are not in favour of expanding, and
scarcely in favour of maintaining our ecclesieseic sl institu-
tions—who would be glad to see the Church the cdpendiary
of the civil power -who are opposed to hereditary Mamie°
-- who, iustead of a free magistracy, would haven wagistracy
constructed upon principle, which they regard as more pre-
cise and rational, but which, in our opinion, are not so
favourable ti the preservation of public liberty in this
country. Ido not fall out with hon. gentlemen for enter-
taining these opinions; but their assent to my exposition of
theca shows that I am right in the supposition that in this
country there are two great parties, and that those parties
have distinct principles. (Hear.) And if Igo to another
great branch of public life—to a subject which years ago did
not attract much of the attention of Parliament, but which
now absorbs it, to the injury, as many believe, of those
measures of internal improvement to which her Majesty
made allusion in the Speech from the throne—l mean the •
general question of foreign affairs, I find, if not in this house,
at least throughout the country, opinions quite opposed to
each other. (Hear.) Nor is this en unimportant conside-
ration, for, upon the prevalence of ono or other of these
classes of opinion the whole form and aspect of the history
of this country may be said to depend. I have always
thought with respect to foreign affairs that there were three
great questions on which it became any man who aspired
to be a statesman in England, as well as any Parliamen-
tary party which incurred the responsibility of supporting
such a man, to have clear and precise ideas ; and these
three are—the Russian empire, the Austrian empire, and
our relations with the United States of Ames ice. There
is, no doubt, a class of persons who have always looked
with great jealousy on the existence and policy of
the Russian empire, and when we went to war the object
—the avowed object of that party—which they upheld
with energy, eloquence, and earnestness, was the dismem-
berment of that empire. (Hear. hear) For my own part,
I have ever been of opinion that the dismemberment of
the Russian empire was not an object which any states-
man ought to propose to himself—that such dismember-
ment, even supposing it to be attainable, could not be at-
tained otherwise than by one of thole long ware which
must fatally exhaust the energy and .indelibly tarnish the
character of this country, and that, even if such dismem-
berment did take place, we might find that the ultimate
result would be to disarrange the balance of power in
Europe in a manner prejudicial to our interests. On that
question, however, there are manifestly two opinious, each
supported by a powerful party. Take sein the case of the
Austrian empire. It is a conservative opinion to hold that
the maintenance of the Austrian empire is necessary to the
independence of Europe, and, if so, essential also to the
civilisation, and even to the liberty of Europe. But surely
there is a contrary opinion. (Hear.) Surely therein iii this
country a great party who hold that, through the dismem-
berment of the Austrian empire, very great political ad-
vantages might be obtained, not for this cenntry only, but.
for the world and for mankind. (Hear.) This leads us to
a question which has recently engaged our attention---the
condition of Italy. Just as the dismemberment of the
Russian empire involves the question of the restoration of '
Poland and Finland, so does the dismemberment of the ,