The Sun.
London, England, 1860-10-27 00:00:00

A " Conservative demonstration" was held here
last_night, to celebrate the inauguration of a local
Conservative Association. There was a public
dinner at the Guildhall, .at . which Sir E. A. H.
Lechmerc, Bart., presided. Viscount Elmley,
M.P., Hon. F. EYgon, and, the Right Hon.
Sir J. S. Pakington,- Bart, were among the guests.
After several introductory toasts; the Chairman
having given " The House of Commons,"
Sir J. PAKINGTON replied
,to the• toast at some
length, and-particularly addressed his observations
to the late and present Government, and the obli-
gations of the House of collllllolll3. He expressed
his conviction that the larger portion of members
of that how sir 40.3b.sie-Abissciga,,theawsss,
try ; Very first duty of the present House
of Commons had been, he need not remind them,
to give him and his colleagues notice to quit, or
rather, perhaps, he 'should say, they had served
them with a notice of ejectment. Now, they,
as men of the world, knew that tenants
served in that, manner always felt aggrieved.
He and his, colleagues felt so. They felt that
they had managed the nOsiness of the house on
pound principles, and that they had left the pre-
mises in quite as good repair as they had found
them. (Laughter.) But his experience as a landlord
had taught him that tenants under moat circum-
stances were not always the best judges of their
own case. He would ask what had been done in the
late session of Parliament? Government had passed 1
one of the worst and most revolutionary, financial
plans that had ever been submitted to the House of
Commons, and they had wasted a great deal of time.
He believed that the majority of the House of Com-
mons who had passed the objectionable financial
plan really disapproved of it as much as he did, and
although for party purposes they'voted for it they
disapproved of it. As to the waste of time in the
last session, his honest opinion was that the House
of Commons had borne more blame than it deserved.
He had repeatedly said, and a few years ago he'
took public action in the House of Commons founded
on his convictions, that his opinion -was that the
enorpaotts business of the country had outgrown the
forms of the House of Commons, and he believed it
was necessary to modify the existing rules and prac-
tices of that house. He trusted that- nett session
something would be. done with that object. .But.
why. the House of Commons bad done so little last
session was that the Government had called upon it
to do more than was poisible: They had been asked
to consider and adopt a commercial treaty with
France, to consider the details of the Budget, to re-
model the whole representative system of England,
to pass a Bankruptcy Bill of deep interest to the
commercial interests of the country, containing
500 clauses—(laughter)--and the members of the
Government must bare well known that to get
through all these measures in one session was utterly -
impracticable. No ordinarysession could be expected
to get through more than two of their great mea-
sures in addition to the ordinary business of the
country. (Hear, hear.) It was unreasonable
therefore to lay upon the House of Commons
the blame, because the last session of Parlia-
'ment was not productive of much legislation.
The House of Commons deserved the grati-
tude of the country for the general disinclination
shown by moderate men on -both sides of the house
to pass the Government Reform Bill. (Hear, hear.)
He and his colleagues had been turned' out of office
because it was said their Reform Bill was not a'
good one, and that the then Opposition would.,
bring in alietter. Bat when they took their places
what did they do ? They procle(3d a measure
which the House of Commons declined to pass al-'
most unanimously, and the Government were
obliged to withdraw the bill. (Cheers.) His opi-
nion was that the subject which should inspire the
country with the most anxiety with regard to the
House of Commons was the present state of politi-
cal parties in that house. Under our constitutional
system, exercising the powerin the State which the
House of Commons did, he believed that the action
of party was essential and advantageous, but that
it could only be so when the organisation of parties
rested on the basis of honest concurrence of politi-
cal opinion and political principle. When, parties
were based on mere watchwords and symbols irre-
spective of political opinion and principle, instead
of being advantageous they were dangerous and de-
lusive, and in his opinion the organisation known
as the great Liberal party was founded on watch-
Words .and symbols, and not on the concurrence of
political opinion. (Cheers.) That party consisted
of two portions, each more opposed to the other
than the more Conservative of the two was opposed
to the Conservative. They had combined together
not to overthrow a principle, but to overthrow a
particular Government.. He thought he could give
them the substance of what had been said .by one
of the parties to the other when the alliance was
made. The substance of the proposition might
have been in these terms :—" It is true that we are
opposed to each other on almost every political
question of the day, and that we have been con-
stantly abusing each other, hut unhappily it is
also true that we are all out of office. (Hear.) There-
fore, though we cannot think together, let us act to-
gether and we shall overthrow the Government.
(Cheers.) He believed this was th e real character of the
overture that had been made; the bargain was
sealed, and the plan having succeeded, the late Go.
vernment was overthrown. (Hear.) Then, in
forming a new Government, common fairness de-
manded that those who had been parties to that
joint action should jointly reap the fruits of it, and
consequently both parties became members of the
Cabinet, and England was exposed to the novel
experiment of trying- how long it might be possible
for men who differed from each other, on almost
every subject to carry on the Government of the
country. As to the fruits of that alliance, they saw
in the different sections of that Cabinet men differ-
ing widely from each other on every•subjeot. They
differed on the subject of 'the Commercial:' Treaty,
the Budget, the Reform Bill, and-last, though not
least, on the course to be taken when the Ho of
Lords rejected the Paper Duty Repeal Bill. (Loud
cheeri.) It was most dangerous for a country like
England to be governed in this manner ; - and the
result of trying to govern the-country on such prin-
ciples as these was, that the nominal leaders whom
they believed to be guiding public affairs were in
reality the tools of inferior and irresponsible men.
They were pushed on to support measures of which
they thoroughly disapproved, because, if they did
not, they would forfeit the places which they had
made such' sacrifices to obtain. (Hear.) He would
illustrate his remarks by the mode in which the
Commercial Treaty had been dealt with. Who was
it that suggested that treaty ? Mr. Bright in July,
1859, first mooted it in the House of Commons.
That treaty was in fact the creation of Mr. Bright
and Mr. Cobden. Lord John Russell, when it was
first talked about,
.and Lord Palmerston gave ex-
pression to sentiments against any such treaty,
but Mr. Cobden went on, and without authority
commenced negotiations at Paris to the surprise of
our Minister.there, Who wrote home for informa-
tion on the subject. But the signal had been given
by the democratic section of this false alliance,
and Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell re-
tracted in January all that they had said in July,
in obedience to the Radical section of the Cabinet.
(Hear, hear.) The budget afforded another illus-
tration of the working of this alliance. If any
Minister had ever been committed on any, subject
of national importance, Mr. Gladstone had been
committed on the income tax: But the Radical
section Of the Cabinet had determined to adopt a
new principle of finance, and the Government,
yielding to that section of their supporters, the man
who was so pledged against the income tax yielded
to the pressure of the democratic section, and
brought forward his budget. And so with regard
to the Reform Bill. When Lord' John Russell
sketched his measure in the spring of last year,
Lord Palmerston entered his protest against it. But
the alliance had been effected, and Lord Palmerston
was obliged to revoke his expression of dissent.
Happily, for England, (Hear, hear.) and, however, the
good sense of the House of Commons .prevented the
scheme being carried out, though there were no
thanks due to the Conservative part of the Cabinet
on that score ; they yielded' to' the vressure of the
Radical alliance. It would be wrong if, while
speaking on the subject, he did not allude to the
part which. Lord Palmerston had taken on the
occasion of the rejection of the hill-for the repeal