The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-20 00:00:00

an act savouring more of resentment than of justice—never
could be perpetrated, than taking a decision of that point upon
a question materially affecting the honor and the character of
the House itself.--( Cheers from the ministerial benches.)
I say, Sir, if it be the intention to try the strength of parties,
let that question be manfully brought to issue upon an add-ess
for the removal of the Ministers.--( Hear, hear.) But
I say, do not on the one hand endanger and damage
the character (Cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hear,"
from the Ministerial benches)—l say, do not commit such an
injustice—( Loud cries of " No, no,")—and I appeal to the
honour and the candour of Gentlemen in this House, when I
ask them if it be not an injustice—( Hear, hear ; and continued
cries of " No, no")—to remove a Speaker against whom you
have not only admitted that there is no present charge,
but whom you have even admitted to be pre-eminently
qualified for the situation—if it be not an injustice to remove
him, for the purpose of ascertaining the strength of parties.—
( Cheers, and " No, no.") But we are told that by the election
of a Speaker this day we are to judge of the strength of parties.
If the decision of this question is to be taken as an indication
of the opinions of the House—if the sentiments of the Speaker
should be in accordance with those of the majority of the Mem-
bers of this House, will the gentlemen who support the Hon.
the Alember for Edinburgh take upon them to declare that his
principles are their principles— (Cheers from the Ministerial
side)—that his politics are their politics, and that by his public
declarations they are prepared to be bound ?—( Continued
cheering.) I know that the Hon. Member for East Surrey
( Majorßeauclerk) will not venture to make such a statement.
I know that he has long been a supporter of the Whig
party, and will not be held bound by the opinions of
the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Abercromby.)
But if my support should be taken as an indication
that I concur in the opinions of either of the Right Hon.
Gentlemen, I must say, that I widely differ from them both,
but especially in the case of the Right Hon. the Member for
Edinburgh, I see grounds for refusing him my support. On
many questions lam opposed to him. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman is for shortening the duration of Parliament—if he
does not actually advocate triennial Parliaments. He sup-
ports, and lam opposed to, Vote by Ballot. lam against the
voluntary principle of supporting the Church, although not
possessed of so much experience on that subject as
the Right Hon. Gentleman. I have thus stated how far I
differ from him on these important questions, and therefore
am I to be told that by supporting his nomination to
the Chair, I have adopted all his political views ?—( Loud
cries of " No, no ! " from the Oposition.) Why, if that
be not the case, what becomes of the statement of Hon
Gentlemen that the decision of this question will be the test of
political strength.—( Cries of " No, no," from the Opposition. )
One of two alternatives must be adopted—either the decision
must be taken as a test of political strength or not. Are the
Gentlemen opposite, who support the Right Hon. Gentleman
-are they all, 1 ask, prepared to adopt all his political senti-
ments? If not, then this decision cannot be regarded as a
test of political strength. It would be impertinent of me to
mention the name of any' gentleman as qualified to discharge
with dignity and impartiality the arduous duties of Speaker of
this House, but if feelings of delicacy did not pre-
vent me, I could lay before the House a man—who, from
his knowledge, setting aside the experience of the Right
Honourable Gentleman below me ( Sir C. M. Sutton)
was preferable to any other with whom I am acquainted, and
whose political opinions approached nearest to my own. I
would select the Right Hon. Gentleman who represents the
town of Cambridge ( Mr. Rice). If my vote is to be tc.ken 'as
an indication that my opinions are in accordance with the po-
litical opinions of the gentleman whom I support, mine accord
more with that Right Hon. Gentleman's, than with those of
the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh; but I disclaim the
doctrine altogether. I neither agree with the political principles
of the Right Hon. Gentleman below me ( Sir C. Sutton), or
with those of the Member for Edinburgh, but I stand on the
declaration which I made before—a declaration consistent
with all my political sentiments and opinions, consistent also
with all the arguments which have been heard from this side
of the House, and not attempted to be refu,ed, that no case
has been made out, which can induce this House to withdraw
its support from the Right Hon. Gentleman who has for so
many years filled the Chair. In conclusion, I have to repeat
that it is on public grounds, and not from any agreement in
political principles, I support the motion of the Noble Lord,
the Member for Liverpool.

Mr. ABERCROMBY explained that the charges alluded
to rested not upon his assertions, but a report which prevailed
out of doors, and originated with some other person.—( Cries
of " Question." and " Divide.")
Mr. FERGUSSON said—lt is with no inconsiderable
degree of diffidence I rise to offer my sentiments on this im-
portant occasion. Very early perceiving that there would be
a strong opposition and difference of opinion on this question,
(though I did not consider it would be so important as it
has become)—from a high respect for the impartiality of feel-
ing and judgment, I did certainly communicate to Sir C. M.
Sutton, that I should vote for him, or at least not against
him.—(" Question, question.") But the character of my
present course, is now, however, very different. It is not now
a question of character, but a great political question.—( Hear,
hear.) On that principle I would have voted against my own
brother, if he had been opposed to the principles I conceived
advantageous to the public good ; but in the situation
in which I was placed, I found that the voice ofthe Reformers
throughout the country was loud and decided on the question.
—(Hear hear.) Even my own constituents requested me to
support the other Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Abercromby),
and -appeals came upon me, so fast and forcible, to bring me
to vote against Sir C. M. Sutton, that I was placed in a very
difficult situation, and there is scarcely a gentleman in the north
who does not think I shall vote against that Right Hon.
gentlemen. lam sorry to say that Sir C. M. Sutton has
placed his honour and character at stake upon this question.—
(Cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hear.") I say it in the most
friendly manner, that he has placed his character and honour
at stake, and as he has left it to me to take my own course, I
may declare that I believe his character and honour is not at
stake.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But the question is inti-
mately connected with the great principle of Reform,
and if I supposed his honour and character were at stake, I
would be the last man to vote against him—( Hear, hear.)
After what has been said, I have nothing more to add than that
I shall so far maintain my promise as not to vote against
him—( Hear; and loud cries of " Question.")
Sir CHARLES M. SUTTON and Mr. FERGUSSON
explained.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose, and was received with
loud cheers. He said he could not trespass upon the time of
the House, without explaining the grounds upon which he
gave his vote upon the present occasion. Before going into
the matter generally, he would say something relative to
what had fallen from his Right Honourable Friend, Lord
Stanley.) If his principles, as laid down by him that day,
were carried out, then there was an end at once to the option
of the House of Commons as to whom they should place in
their chair. According to that doctrine, the House of Com-
mons were bound to re-elect the Right Hon. Gentleman, because
he had come down and denied, most firmly, that he had
any thing to do with counselling the dissolution of the late
House—( Great cheering)--with being guiltless of intriguing
for the dismissal of the late Ministry. The House had not
met for the purpose of passing a vote of censure upon
the Right Honourable Gentleman the late Speaker, but
to exercise one of the most important acts they could
be called upon to do, viz., the choosing of a gentleman to
preside over their debates ; and it would not, it could not, for
a moment be supposed that the House would cast dishonour
on any one of the candidates, because they did not elect him—
( Cheers.) There was a precedent for the election he pro-
posed to the House. In the time of Lord North, Sir Fletcher
Norton having done something to displease that Minister,
and the Noble Lord having a majority in the House,
proposed another gentleman as Speaker, making some com-
plimentary speech to the effect that he was too old a servant
of the House and ought to be relieved from his duties—the
Noble Lord carried his motion, but could it for a moment be
supposed that the House intended by the vote to cast cen-
sure upon Sir F. Norton ? Much had been said as to the
attendance of the late Speaker at the Privy Councils ; but it
was a well known fact, that the summoning of the Councillors
does not rest with the King, but with the Prime Minister
for the time. The attendance in question took place when the
Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister—(Cheers)--and
it was a well known fact that none of the Councillors were
summoned but those who were well known to hold opinions in
in 'unison with the person who summoned.—( Cheers.) His
feeling was that the Speaker
.of the House of Commons
had so mixed himself up in the late political world, that he
had compromised the dignity of the character.—( Cheers. )
There is no doubt that if the Right Hon. Gentleman had
pleaded to be excused, it would have been granted. At the
time the Duke of Somerset was appointed Master of the Horse
he no longer attendee the Privy Council meetings, and when
the Earl of Albemarle held a similar situation he also
declined attending them. If the Right Hon. Gent. had sig-
nified that such a proceeding would not be becoming in him,
if he had intimated the slightent wish that he thought
such a proceeding inconsistent with his public character, he
would have been at once excused.—( Hear, hear.) The nue- _
ber of Privy Councillors is not so small to re uire
the attendance cf every indiy„t-iiey __
amount inq all
to two hundred, awl upwards, and it therefore cannot
be necessary that the Speaker of the House of Commons
should appear there against the known opinion—against what
would have been the declared opinions of that House of Com-
mons.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") I think it can-
not be doubted that the Right Honourable Gentleman
would hardly have done that, if we were in the middle
of a Session of Parliament ; if it was, for instance, during the
Easter recess, I fancy he would not have attended four
or five Privy Councils, and be prepared to meet Par-
liament, and •ask for . their approbation for a provisional
Ministry, consisting solely and entirely of the Duke of
Wellington.—( Loud cheering.) With regard to the
charge of degradation that has been made, I fancy that
the Right Hon. Gentleman cannot view it in such a light, and
there is nothing in the question that would make that gentleman
retire from this House with mortified or painful feelings.
I think the only point on which the question turns is
with respect to the Right Honourable Gentleman's political
bias. As the Hon. Member for Yorkshire' observed
when proposing him on a former occasion, his political
feelings did not remain inert, but got the better of him, and
made him do acts which, as the Speaker of this House, he
should have avoided. This would be a ground with me, I con-
fess, for having the election of Speaker pure; and it is one
of my reasons for not choosing the Right Hon. Gentleman.—
( Hear, hear.) It has been urged that Lord Grey's Govern-
ment app
roved of the Right Hon. Gentleman on two occa-
sions. With respect to the first of them, it was in the
year 1811, when the Right Honourable Gentleman still
continued in the office of Speaker, and nothing cccurred to
render hls removal necessary, to the end of the Session
of 1832. On the other occasion the Right Honourable
Gentleman did retire--he stated to the House that he