The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-08 00:00:00

table ? (Cheers.) Then afterwards, when they saw a divi-
sion in the liberal party—when theY, found that a large Pn - tier of the liberals opposed the measure—then, yielding to
that desire fur office which I do not in itself blame, but
which they should not make a reproach to those who may
now oppose them, they abandoned their own opinion
(Ilear)—they voted against a bill which they had represented
to be necessary for the honour of the country and for the
maintenance of a good understanding with a great neigh-
bouring country, and by that manoeuvre they obtained
office. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, I say their origin
was bad. (Loud cheers.) It was not creditable to thbom
as a party, and they ought, I think, to have felt
more gratitude than they have. at different times
expressed for the forbearance with which those who
were driven into opposition have abstained from twitting
them with those circumstances. (Hear, hear.) Then,
when they had got in in that way, what was the conduct
of the gentlemen on this side? Did we harass them with
any vexatious and factious motions? On the contrary,
they professed to stand in a minority the House of Com-
mons ; when the noble lord (Derby) mine in, he admitted in
his place in the House of Lords that the Government of
which he was the head was supported only by a minority in
this house ; and if the Government under those circum-
stances have been. able to support its existence so long, that
simple fact is a proof that they had been treated with for-
bearance.
least,they
take when
up suienh adeGfeorev
(Hear, hear.) A Government standing so can-
not by possibility pursue their own course or act upon their
nawd;topmmeiasonsur.es hi
' But, e
opinion of the majority, they ought, if they be a"Govern-
mentenrncemteentdo
the
deserving by their capacity the confidence of the
country, to frame measures which will carry into effect the
great principles they have adopted from their opponents in
a manner acceptable to public opinion. In this, unfortu-
nately, the present Government did not succeed. There
were two great matters upon which they had to introduce
bills. There was the transfer of the Government of India
to the Crown, and the reform of the representation of the
people in this house. They adopted the transfer of the
Government of India from the Company to the Crown,
although out of office they had opposed it. They had
up to the last moment resisted that transfer; but in office
they immediately adopted it. (Hear, hear.) This was
very lendable, no doubt, because, being in a minority,
the only consideration of their existence was that
they should submit, in great measures, to the will of the
majority. But then so unfortunate were they in devising and
framing the measure which should carry out that great ar-
rangement, that the measure they proposed was met with
universal ridicule, and was withdrawn without the slightest
hesitation, and another substituted in its place. That second
measure, undnobtedlv, at last pissed the house with consi-
derable alters ions ; I;ut I may be allowed to think that that
second measure, although framed on the pattern of that
which we had introduced, was less wall adapted for working
the system introdmced. Their first measure of legislation
thus utterly and entirely failed. Then they had to deal
with another great question—Parliamentary Reform. Out
of office they were opposed to the carrying of a measure
which, in office, they undertook to propose. They had been
anti-reformers, but, feeling that a Government resting on
a minority must adopt the principles of the majority, they
became parliamentary reformers and produced their bill.
Those who had watched the progress of the India Bill fore-
told that the Reform Bill would be an equal failure. It is
sometimes said that men will not fail twice in the same way,
that they must have the means of juding of public opinion,
and will introduce a measure which, with some modifica-
tions, will be acceptable to the majority of the house. But
they produced a measure which not one man of the Cabinet
thought deserving of being passed into a law. (Cheers.)
There was hardly a member on the other side of the house
who did not find fault with the measure. (Hear, hear.)
At last came the resolution proposed by my noble
friend, which was calculated to redress two at least
of the leading defects of the measure. That was carried by
a majority sufficient to prove thatthe bill could not be carried
through its different stages. There was a second failure in
regard to an important matter of domestic legislation. When
I see a Government in the course of twelve months trying
their hand at two important measures, in both of which
they failed, I think it is not assuming too much to say that
it is not a Government in which the house can place confi-
dence in regard to legislation at home. (Cheers.) Then
what was the course they pursued on that occasion ? They
treated the resolution as a vote of censure. But they had no
right to do so. It was a vote of censure upon a measure,
but not upon them, except in so far as it is a censure en a
Government to say that a measure is not fit for the adoption
of the house. (Laughter.) They said they had but two
courses to choose—resignation or dissolution I contend
there was a third course, which it was their duty to have
pursued. Being a Government resting on a minority—being
a Government avowedly dependent upon the acquiescence of
the majority, the condition of their existence was to shape
their course in accordance with the opinions and feelings of
the majority. They ought to have withdrawn their bill us
they did their India Bill, and have brought in another,
framed on principles which the debates had shown to be in
accordance with the general opinion of Parliament; and if
they had done so, that bill would have passed ; and at this
moment, in all probability, it would have been the law of
the land. (Cheers.) It was said of them we cannot repeat
twice a course which we have once ventured upon. They
had made two mistakes. They were not prevented
from making a second mistake, because they had made the
first. To be twice in the wrong they did not object, but to
be twice in the right was repugnant to their feelings.
(Cheers and laughter.) It was said that I had taunted them,
and told them what they ought to do. Why, are they men
or are they children ? (Laughter.) It might be a very good
argument for a naughty child to say, " I won't do it, because
you tell me." But as men, as statesmen, as governors of a
great country, dealing with a great and important question,
to say they will not do what is right because one of their
opponents has told them to do it in a manner they perhaps
might not quite like—(laughter)—men who can argue in
that manner are not fit to be entrusted with the government
of a great country. (Cheers.) Then they dissolved, and
I should like to know how many men in the house approved
of that dissolution. j. am not speaking of the personal in-
convenience to which members on both aides were exposed,
but of the position in which the dissolution placed the Go-
vernment of this country in a great crisis. (Cheers.) Many
things have happened which clearly show that whatever
other gifts the Government might possess, they did not
possess the gift of prophecy. (Laughter.) If they had
poked with statesmanlike eyes to the condition of Europe,
and the condition in which Europe might be before' Par-
liament could assemble again, they ought not to have tle-
prived themselves df its assistance, and they ought not,
without the consent of Parliament, to have increased the
establishments of the country. Nothing but the most abso-
lute necessity could have justified them in depriving them-
selves of the assistance of Parliament. I say that the course
they pursued was an unconstitutional course, because to add
materially to the military or naval establishments of the
country when Parliament is not sitting, unless such increase
is called for by some overruling necessity, is not in accor-
dance with the principles of the constitution (Cheers.)
What the overruling necessity was we have not heard to-
night, because they keep their secret to themselves. No
member of the Government had risen to explain what was
the imminent danger which required the increase of our
establishments whilst Parliament was not sitting to give
its sanction to that increase. (Cheers.) Ido not find fault
practically with what has been done. (Ministerial cheers.)
But I find fault with them for placing themselves in a con-
dition which obliged them to act in that manner, and with-
out any necessity, and in opposition to their duty. (Cheers.)
We are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a
delay of even 24 hours in our decision will produce some
unknown and awful peril. Now if a doubt existing on the
mind of foreign governments as to whether-her Majesty's
Government has or has not the support of Parliament
may produce such awful results, how came it that the Go-
vernment thought themselves justified in sending away
Parliament and placing themselves for six weeks or two
months in that situation when peril must arise to the great
interests of the country ? (Cheers.) No doubt the position
in which it stood before was not calculated to give strength to
the Government with regard to our foreign relations, because
a Government that exists upon sufferance and is liable to be
overthrown from week to week cannot expect foreign Go-
vernments to enter into negotiations with them with the
.confidence :that their policy will be pursued by their suc-
cessors. (Cheers.) I say, considering the position in which
they were, if they had brought in another Reform Bill it
would have been much better for the interests of the coun-
try than the total absence of Parliament, and the more than
doubt that must have existed in the mind of Europe as to
whether the Government had the support of Parliament and
the country. What was the• issue they put before the
country ? They declared that they dissolved Parliament
because they had not the support of the majority, and it
must have remained doubtful whetherithe election would
give them the majority which they had not, and whether
such a majority would be returned as would give stability
to their tenure of office. I say that such a dissolutian was
a culpable proceeding. (Cheers.) It was a sacrificing of
what might have been great public interests for the purpose
of obtaining a few votes at the different hustings. The
right hon. gentleman spoke with great levity of the charges
which had been made against the Government for the irre-
gular proceedings which have taken place at the elections.
I am not going to enter into that question now, but I will
venture to tell him that before any great length of time has
passed there will be plenty of evidence of the fact. (Cheers.)
If the Government showed themselves unable to carry on
the domestic legislation of the country, much more so have
they shown themselves in the management of our foreign
relations. (Cheers.) It is said that we must not &press
an opinion on that point in the absence of blue books, but
there is sufficient evidence before us to tell the story. We
know the outline of what has passed. I have no doubt
the Government did what they thought best calculated to
prevent the war, but my opinion is that the course which
they pursued brought on the war. (Cheers.) Their great
notion was that the danger of war arose from France and
Sardinia—that if they held language hostile to France and
Sardinia, and patronising towards Austria, there would be
• f was that
no war. Up to the very last moment their belle
.es
and
if they could only threaten France with hostilities,
' breaking
intimate to Europe that in the event of a Nruarsti
peace
out they would be found on the side of
A and " Oh,
would be preserved and war prevented. (Cheers,hilst holding that
oh.")' They ought to have known
forw war ;
but at the
language that Austria had decided
was talking of
moment when the right hon. gentleman
conduct of Austria, and the
the dignified and conciliatory
suspicious conduct of Sardinia, that summons was on its
way to Sardinia which the
afterwards noble lord at the head of the
at the Mansion-house was
obliged to declare
Government a weekrendered Austria criminal. (Hear,
hear.) It is plain they
were ignorant of the state of affairs
—that they were uninformed
as
to what was going on—
that they were underl int-
a delusion, and believed the danger
the a,
be imminent on part of France and Sardinia
and war to
and that there was no danger on the part of Austria. If
they had known what was going
at
onVienna, and the
intentions of the
h Austrian Government, they would have
held there had
different language. If been a Government
gRe sing the confidence of Parliament, and resting on
P°- s Icannot but believe that theof
its support, use firm and
temperate language would have induced Austria to abstain
from that act of aggression which. in the opinion of the head
of the Government, converted Austria into the condition of
a criminal. (Cheers.) I cannot persuade myself that a
Government which was actuated by statesmanlike views
and carried with it the support of the country, would not
have been able to prevent the outbreak of the war.
(Cheers) These things lead me to the conclusion that the
Government is not entitled to the confidence and support of
Parliament with regard to its foreign relations any more
than with respect to its domestic concerns. We are told
we ought not to lose a moment in coming to a decision.
Now, whose fanit is it that so much delay has taken place Y
Why did not the dissolution take place a week earlier and
the Parliament reassemble sooner than it has done? The
question for decision is, whether the electors have or have
not given a majority to the Government, and I contend
that the course which we are now pursuing is the manly
and constitutional course. The appeal to the country was
to determine whether the Government possessed its
.eot
dance. We should be failing in our duty and disatprrerm
the expectations of the country if we sat
lsilen lief
isd
allowed judgment to go against us by defan My be
that the verdict will be against the Government, but v hat-
ever it may be the question ought
to be settled. It isnot
the constitution ►that
in accordance with the principles of
owe its existence to the suffe ran ce
the Government should