The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-11 00:00:00

_
Duke of Wellington's Government that passed. Catholic
emancipation ; it was the Government of Sir R. Peel that
repealed the corn laws, and it was Lord Derby's Govern-
ment that admitted the Jews to Parliament. (Cries of
" Oh, oh," and loud laughter.) In the hands of Lord J.
Russell the Jew Bill was tossed about like a shuttlecock,
that house being for 25 years the one battledore, and the
House of Lords the other. What reason had he to suppose
that any reform bill brought in by the noble lord would
not undergo a similar process perhaps (for 20 years to
come? The present Government had in her Majesty's
speech pledged themselves to a substantial measure of re-
form—(,‘ no no," and hear)—to " a measure of reform
which her Majesyitrusts will be satisfactory to the country."
The Chancellor of the Bxchequer pledged himself on the
part of the Government that he would even this session,
should the house demand it, introduce a reform bill which
would disfranchise many of the small boroughs, and give
a considerable extension of the franchise. That, he be-
lieved, was all they wanted on that (the opposition) side of
the house just now. The hon. member for Birmingham
said he did not know when the present Government could
give them a reform bill, but if the Whigs came into office
they could get one this year. But could any reform bill be
passed this year, or did any person desire that one should
pass ? Did hon. gentlemen want again to go to their con-
stituents instead of going grouse shooting ? They knew that
if the Whigs came into office they could not get a reform
bill, and that they could get more early from the present
Government, and more than that, he felt that the Govern-
ment would be able to pass a reform bill through another
place, having a majority there, which the Whigs had not.
That was a great consideration with him, as an earnest
reformer and wishing to settle the question for the well-
being of the people and the constitution also. The hon.
member for Birmingham, in a recent speech of his,
referred to the opinions held by a noble lord, who in
the event of a change of government might be sent for by
her Majesty, or who in any government that might be
formed would hold a distinguished place in the Cabinet.
His hon. friend said that " he was not about to defend the
conduct of Lord Palmerston, or to retract one sentence
which he had ever uttered with regard to him ; and before
they should destroy one government they ought to see
whether they could get a better or a stronger in its place."
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) His hon. friend the member for
Birmingham said that his opinion was unaltered, and that.
he would not retract a single sentence he had ever uttered
with regard to the noble lord the member for Tiverton. He
(Mr. Lindsay) did not know whether his hon. friend would
be a member of any government which might be formed ;
he believed that he wished to retain the independent posi-
tion he had hitherto occupied, but he believed the right
hon. gentleman who sat next his hon. friend, and who held
the same opinions, was likely to be honoured with a seat in
the coalition Cabinet. (Hear, hear.) Let gentlemen con-
sider whether a Cabinet so constituted was likely to be
• stronger than the present. He need not go back to all that
his hon. friend' had said of the noble lord the member for
Tiverton at different times; he would only go back to last
session to show what were the views which his hon. friend
held with regard to the noble lord, and as his views were
exactly the same as those of the right hon. gentleman
the member for Ashton, how could that right hen. gentle-
man and, the noble lord work well together in the same
Cabinet P His hon. friend said that he expected that he
should obtain more reform and was more likely to secure
peace from the new Government than from that now in
office, and yet only last session he said, " When the noble
lord came into office he was paraded as a great reformer."
He was paraded now—(loud cheers)—but, continued his
honourable friend, " when he left office, he left nothing
but confusion abroad, and at home nothing had been
done." Did his honourable friend suppose that more would
be done now than then ? A person like the noble lord was
not likely at his years to change. It was curious that in
the same speech his honourable friend also referred to the
noble lord the member for London, who would hold a dis-
tinguished position in a new cabinet. His hon, friend said,
" that the noble „lord, too, had been Prime Minister,
and the leader of the great Whig party, with
whom some persons who called themselves Radicals
had dovetailed. They had done so now. (Loud Minis-
terial cheers.) But, continued his hon. friend, " the
spoils of office had fallen to the share of the noble lord and
his immediate friends." What reason had his hon. friend
for supposing that the spoils of office would be disposed of
now in a different manner ? The noble lord (Palmerston) in-
sinuated the other night that if he were in office he would be
able to keep England out of war. His right hon. friend knew
very well that the noble lord had not been so very great a
peace Minister, and when his hon. friend themember for Bir-
mingham expressed some doubts of the peace policy of the
noble lord at 'Willis's Rooms, the noble lord got up and said
that on the question of peace he agreed with the hon. mem
ber for Birmingham. (4, Hear, hear," and laughter.) His
hon. friend now said that they agreed on this question of
peace. If so, the noble ford must very suddenly have
changed his views. Looking' back for many years, it would
be found that if the noble lord had not led us into war, he
had at least not kept us at peace. Recollect how the British
fleet was sent into the waters of Grswee to obtain the payment
of a magnificent debt of £l5O ; and the war with China
entered into on account of an alleged insult to the British
flag by a miserable lorcha, and the firing of shot and shell
which ensued mowed down thousands of defenceless
people on the pretext of defending the honour of the Bri-
tish flag ; but what became of the honour of England
when it was menaced by an insulting desyatch from the
Minister of a foreign Powerl?—heers) ? and who was it
that vindicated the honour of England :Was it the
noble lord or the right hon. gentleman the niember for
Ashton ? The noble lord was said to have great sympathy
for Italy, and yet in 1848 Lombardy might have been freed,
for the noble lord had it in his power to do it. (..‘ Hear,
hear," and cheers.) He should like to have an answm" on
that point, whether or not it was the case that Ausaiti
offered to evacuate Lombardy, and whether the noble lord
refused to assent to it. (Hear.) If so, was not the noble
lord responsible to a great extent for the war which was
now going on? For the reasons he had stated he considered
it to be his duty as a calm, thinking man—(laughter, and
"hear, hear")—as an advocate of reform and peace, to give
his vote against the amendment on which they were to
divide that evening. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) But he
should do so for another reason. The question before the
house was the address to her Majesty in reply to her speech
from the throne. Now, in the whole course of the debate
not a word had been said of the policy propounded is her
Majesty's Speech, and they were asked to agree to an
amendment to that speech, although they as Liberals en-
tirely agreed in and could find no fault with the principles
laid down in it. Strict neutrality was arrived at on the
part of the Government, and they stated that they- had,
done all in their power to preserve peace, and papers had
been offered to the house which would prove that they had
done so. No one on that (the Opposition) side ever affected
to doubt that. Then as regarded rumours about sympathy
with Austria, every effort had failed to show that there was
anything but a rumour on that point; and was he to give
his vote for destroying a Government from a mere rumour ?
(Loud Ministerial cheers.) He should ill-represent the gen-
tlemen who had returned him by a large majority if he did
so. (Hear, hear.) But the right hon. gentleman themem-
ber for Stroud had made one or two of the most extraor-
dinary statements he ever heard. He said :—" Her Ma-
jesty informed them that in the differences which had
arisen between continental powers her mediatorial efforts in
the interests of peace had entirely failed. She told them
that war was now raging in Italy, but that her determina-
tion was—and in this her Majesty was loyally supported by
all classes of her subjects—that England should remain
strictly neutral. But shewent on to inform them that she had
felt it right in the present state of Europe to add to her naval
forces, thereby disclosing an apprehension that circumstances
beyond her control might unhappily arise to compel reluctant
England to become a belligerent power. All this was well
known, but'the authoritative announcement was, perhaps,
one of the most important which had been made by the
Sovereign to'Parliament in our day. We had borne a part
in negotiations now concluded, • and unless Providence
averted the calamity we might be entangled in the war."
War was raging, and a spark from that conflagration might
reach England, and were her Majesty's ministers to leave
her Majesty unprotected—(" hear, hear," and cheers)—in
circumstances which the right hon. gentleman said might
be quite beyond their control. While he (Mr. Lindsay)
was an advocate of peace and economy, he was also an ad-
vocate, especially at the present time, when war was raging
in Europe, for having the defences of the country in an
efficient state not only to protect England, but to vindicate
her honour, which was of far more importance to her as a
nation, and especially as a commercial nation. (Hasa.) The
right hon. gentleman the member fer Stroud gave another
reason why he should vote against the Government. He
stated that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had only
appealed to the house not to bring forward this motion, he
should have been disposed to have voted against the amend-
ment. Well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no op-
portunity of doing so, for the amendment was concocted,
and arranged, and agreed upon by the leaders of the dif-
ferent sections of the liberal party before the right hon.
gentleman was sworn in. (Hear.) The Chancellor of the
Exchequer took the earliest opportunity immediately after
the amendment had been moved, to expound his policy in
what he (Mr. Lindsay) would call *a straightforward and
honest speech. (Hear.) And although he did not ask that
the amendment should not be pressed, he said as much
when he declared that he thought the house ought to give
the Government a chance of carrying out the liberal
policy which he had propounded. The house, however,
would not let him have a chance, for fear that he should
bring in some such reform bill as he did last session. If
he did, he (Mr. Lindsay) would vote against it, as he did
last session, for the reasons which the noble lord the mem-
ber for London had embodied in his resolution were to him un-
answerable; but because the Government bad erred with re-
spectm,e to that bill, was that a reason for assuming that they
last
g.etLondonhsbillaemsswo
hnhe. was rore 1191 able to bring in a bill which might meet with ap-
Pmenivabr It might as well be said that the noble lord the
because ianiisshtrenoodwobteeuldeifieedttvhedteoinhbiotrilnBsg4inwaaaßeefvoermu
more
erroneous
in principle than the Reform Bill of the Govern-
menterronewfori3i usweasththate
the bill
iirclieomf
the
r
noble lord, in attempting to givvotestio minorities, was
unconstitutional and unsound. But would the hon gentle-
man say that he would not trust the noble lord t
another bill on that account ? For the same reason bring
hat hi in
would have allowed the noble lord to bring in another bill,
he would allow the Government to do so, especially as they
had by the dissolution learnt what were the wishes and
feelings of the people with regard to the franchise which
they did not know before, and there was every hope that
they, like the Duke of Wellington with regard to Catholic
emancipation, and like Sir R. Feel with regard to the corn
laws, would have endeavoured to meet the wishes of the
people with regard to a Reform Bill, and if they had done
so they would have been able to pass it rapidly through the
other house, which the Whigs would not be able to do.
For these reasons, and because in this Parliament he saw
no reason for passing a vote of no confidence against the
Government, he should give his vote against amend-
ment. (Loud Ministerial cheers.)
Mr. S. HERBERT said that he was afraid that those
persons in the house who took offence at the reconciliation
of sections of the Liberal party had found little comfort in
the speech which they had just heard. (Laughter and
cheers.) They on that side of the house were not quite
unanimous ; there was something still which was a g,round
for division in the Liberal ranks. He had hoped to have
got through this discussion without feeling the necessity
of taking any part in it. He was not fond of discussions
on the merits, not of measures, but of men. Hon.
gentlemen opposite would do him the justice to admit
that in the most heated controversies not one word
had ever dropped from him which could imply any want
of respect for the party to which they belonged. He had
always spoken of and freely acknowledged their high quali-
ties, and if in this case he had a complaint to make it was
not against the party itself, but against those who led it.
Before the dissolution of Parliament the Government had
challenged an issue on the ground of confidence. In that
house before the dissolution the Government had said, we
stand on our measures ; we are in a minority, and we won't
carry on the Government by concession to the Liberal ma-
jority. It was, then, measures not men. In the country
the cry was different, it was men not measures. The Go-
vernment having given this challenge could not complain
that it had been taken up. In the Queen's Speech at the
end of last session, her Majesty erns made tp hope that Under

the blessing et! Providence that dissolution would enable
her to conduct'. the government of the country under the
advice of a Mi-iiistry that possessed the confidence of a ma-
jority of Parli iment and the people. The Government said
that they faile d with their Reform Bill ; but had that been
the case with i io one else? Had hot the noble lord (Lord J.
Russell) brow ght in a Reform Bill which had not been
carried ? It h Lad been remarked by the hon. member for
1 Sunderland tb .at the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) brought in
a Reform Bill in 1854, and it failed ; and that he brought one
in before whir I. failed. But those bills were not rejected.
The bill which the noble lord brought in, when he led the
house as a int daber of the Government of Lord Aberdeen,
was not rejected, but it was the universal feeling of the house
that no Reform Bill could be entertained when the war with
Russia broke out. That bill had been made the foundation
of a great portion of the late bill of the Government. It pro-
posed the £lO franchise in counties, and without taking
away any of the credit due' to the hon. member for West
Surrey, he (Mr. S. Herbert) believed the present Government
had taken that principle from the bill of the Government of
Lord Aberdeen. Another principle of that bill was the lower-
ing of the borough :Franchise, which the present Government
had studiously avoided, but which they now hinted that
they would be dispose d to do hereafter. Thepresent Govern-
ment, therefore, having availed itself of two of the main
provisions of the bill O. the noble lord in 1854, had no right
to lay any stress upon titie fact that that bill did not pass
into a law. But there was one great distinction to be
made, the noble lord was a reformer. (Cheers.) He did not
quarrel with the present Government for undertaking to
deal with reform. As the vnble lord the member for Tiver-
ton had said, "they took the horse with his engagements,
and knew what they were bound to." Though professei
anti-reformers, therefore, who argued with zeal and ability
against the proposition of the hon. member for West Surrey
until the last moment, they brought in a bill upon that
model. (Hear, hear.) But he preferred not to wait now
for the fulfilment of their pronrises. He preferred to see
reform in the hands of reformers. It was no easy
matter to carry a Reform .Bill ; but there must
always be increased difficulties when either 'of the great
parties in the house did not confine themselves to doing
that which it was their duty, in right of their principles, to
do, but undertook to do business for others. He had been
blamed for saying that there was a special danger in a Re-
form Bill being brought in by the Conservatives ; but he
thought so, because in the nature of things the Opposition
would think themselves bound to go beyond it. A right
hon. gentleman opposite had said of the late measure of the
Government, " This is a Reform Bill which, if it had been
introduced by Lord Palmerston, and we had been in oppo-
sition, every man of us would have opposed." Some compro-
mise must always be made before such a question could be
settled ; no Government could pass a Reform Bill exactly as
they brought it in ; but if it were brought in by those whose,
antecedents were opposed to reform, it would be passed under
protest from those who wished to go further, and they
would not hold themselves bound by the compromise. If, on
the other hand, it were brought in and passed by the Liberal
party, they would be bound by the compromise, and there
would be a prospect of its stability and permanence, which
there could not be in the case of Lila brought in by a Con-
servative Government and passed with the reluctant assent,
or probably the dissent and protest of the Opposition. There
was one measure not brought forward by the. Government
but assented to by them, the abolition of the property qua-
lification for members. He remembered that when that was
passed some one asked the Government which point of the
charter they were going to give next. A practical answer
to this question was given in their Reform Bill, which pro-
posed a sort of electoral districts. If the vote were suc-
cessful, he should be glad to see the executive placed in
stronger hands ; and if, on the contrary, the Government
should be in a majority, it would probably command a
wider support. Their numbers on that side could not much
preponderate, but he hoped that if they found themselves
in power, the patriotism and good sense of the country
would come to their aid, and, whichever party were pos-
sessed of authority, he trusted that party would bring to a
successful issue the great questions which press upon them ;
'that their various domestic interests might be fully con-
sidered in any reform bill that might be presented, and that
they might be able to restore peace to Europe in a manner
that would show that they in England had not forgotten
that there was a people struggling for liberty. (Cheers.)
Mr. BENTINCK said complaints had been made on the
other side that there was an indisposition on his (Mr.
Bentinck's) side of the house to meet the arguments of hon.
gentlemen opposite, but he held that the reason why the
discussion had languished was that there was nothing in
the arguments of those who advocated the amendment to
call for reply. It was alleged that the Government had
failed in carrying their measures. It was not for him to
defend the Government, who were well able to stand up for
themselves—he did not deny that there had been occasions
when he viewed the conduct of Ministers with regret—but
he held that he should be taking a most unjust course, if,
because he had differed from them upon. one or two
occasions, he should at once join in the vote proposed by
the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) He should like to know
how the commercial interests of England could be
reconciled with the deterioration of her fleet. With
our naval supremacy our commercial greatness would
cease. Yet, probably, by agreeing to the vote of censure
now proposed a government would be introduced whose
policy would be to destroy that naval supremacy. He
thought this question one of such importance that, before
the house determined upon pursuing any course the result
of which might be a change of ministry a guarantee should
be demanded from those likely to succeed that our national
defences should be maintained in a thorough state of effi-
ciency. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR said the hon. gentleman who
had just spoken had asserted that the arguments advanced
by that (the opposition) side of the house containednothing
worthy of reply. He (Mr. Seymour) thought, on the con-
trary, that no reply could be given to the cogent arguments
advanced. What answer had been attempted to the question
why anacknowledgedminority should occupythe ministerial
benches, while the majority was to be found on the opposite
aid& ofrthe house ?
An HON. MEMBER—Are you a majority ? (Laughter.)
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR said, not only were they a
majority, but they had been so since the Government first
held office—that was, if all the sections of the Liberal party
were united. (Laughter.) And he saw no reason why they
should not be united. ( enewed laughter.) It was only nr
accordance with constitutional precedents that the majority
of the house should hold the reins of government, and Eng-
land would soon sink into a third-rate power if, forgetting
her constitutional precedents, she allowed a government in
an acknowledged minority to remain in office.
Captain VERNON said he should not have risen whilst so
many hon. members were anxious to address the house, ex-
cept for the fact that he had a little information to give to
gentlemen on the opposite side, and particularly to the right
hon. member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), and the hon.
member for Davenport (Mr. Wilsonl, who, indeed, were not
now present in their places, but who he had no doubt would
hear by other means what he had to communicate within the
next 24 hours. The subject onwhich he was about to givein-
formation he should not have considered of much importance
except for the fact of those gentlemen to whom he had
referred having dragged it into the debate by the hair of the
head. It was the case of the Cunard line to which he re-
ferred. The hon. and right hon. gentleman had placed the
matter before the house in an invidious position. The hon.
member for Devonport stated that the contract had been
made contrary to all precedent, and insinuated that it was
made for the purpose of jobbery. The right hon. member
for Carlisle, with that intrepidity of assertion—(laughter)--
for which he was, not without a certain amount of fact,
celebrated, went so far as to say that the money had been
expended in huge, gigantic bribery—a bribery of all the
members for the west of Ireland. The hon. member for
Birmingham talked of a travelling politician, but the right
hon. member for Carlisle had not always sat for Carlisle,
nor had the hon. member for Devonport always sat for
Devonport. It might be that they in the course of their
travels might present themselves at the western side of
Ireland, and if so they would speedily discover that they
were not the men for Galway. The hon. member for De-
vonport had given them to understand that there was no
precedent for that which he had denounced. In 1851 Lord
Jocelyn's committee sat, and of that committee the hon.
member for Devonport was one. The committee was ap-
pointed to consider the mode of arranging the postal com-
munication with India, and they came to a distinct under-
standing that there should be two lines of postal commu-
nication with India, and that those two lines should not be
given to the same parties. One line was in the possession
of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and the other line
was competed for by the Eastern Steam Navigation Com-
pany. In defiance of the recommendation of the committee
the second line of communication was given to the l'enin-
sular and Oriental Company, and they then had a mono-
poly of the East Indian postal communication, except a
small line held by the. East India Company hetween Aden
and Bombay. They afterwards ceased to hold that line, and
it was then asked for by certain parties, but they, however,
found that it was already given to the Peninsular and Oriental
Company. He did not charge this as a job ; but why should
the hon. gentleman charge the present Government with a
job in the Cunard case ? He never recollected hearing that
the hon. member for Devonport was in 'want of memory ; he
recollected what he heard and saw; and ho (Capt. Vernon)
thought that he ought to recollect what he did. Gentlemen
who wanted to get this line from Aden to Bombay commu-
nicated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked for
an interview, and received the following reply :-
- - " Downing-street, -Dec. 8, 1853.
" Sir,—The Chancellor of the Exchequer desires me to
inform you, in reply to your letter dated the 11th October,
but which only arrived in Downing-street on the sth inst.,
that no intimation has yet been conveyed to him on the part
of the East India Company of their intention to abandon the
line of steam communication between Aden and Bombay,
and in this state of the question he would be much obliged
if, previous to urging an interview with him, you would
have the kindness to favour him with an outline of your
views upon the subject in writing.—' have the honour, &c.,
" Thos. Holrsyd, Esq." W. WILBRA HAM.
" 70, Cornhill, Dec. 14, 1853.
" Sir,—When the former contracts for the carriage of tha
mails in the Eastern seas were about to expire, I had in depu-
tation several times occasion to meet Sir C. Wood, the then
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who invariably stated to us
that the question for the contracts for the carriage of the
mails rested entirely with him as' Chancellor of the Exche-
quer,' and Sir C. Wood exercised that authority by giving
all the contracts for the carriage of the mails to the Penin-
sular and Oriental Company, much to the disappointment
ofthe mercantile and Indian communities.
" When, therefore, it became known that the East India
Company were about to abandon the line between Aden and
Bombay, the mercantile community felt that an opportunity
was now offered for competition in the Eastern seas, and a
moment favourable for carrying out the recorded opinion of
the commissioners on the contract packet service for the esta-
blishment of a line via Trieste. Feeling satisfied that the
steam
Company,
matter really rested with you, I took the liberty of soliciting
an interview. The reily,to my letter from your secretary,
Mr. Wilbraham, dated the Bth inst., states that no intima-
tinon.had as yet been conveyed to you on the part of the East
in thmateostTrinte of their intention to abandon the line of
nonfitchateiognubeesttwioenTyAoudenwoanuiddßbeomobaadyt;oahnadvtehaatn,
outline of my views in writing previous to an interview.
" You will, therefore, I am sure, be equally surprised with
myself to find that, without your knowledge, a contract has
BCoominpbaanyyoffotrhtahtepcoartinioangoefotfhethleinema a
been virtually concluded with the Peninsular and Oriental
iblsanbedotnweedenbyAthdeenEaasndt
India Company, thus giving the Peninsular and Oriental
Compnny a complete monopoly of the Indian and China seae.
This information I had from a Mr. Wilson, the Secretary
to the Treasury—(Ministerial peers) i 1 morning ; and
from what he told me it would appear to be useless in my
troubling you with my views on this subject, since he stated
the arrangement to have been concluded a fortnight ago, and
therefore just one week before the date of your sCcreeary's
letter to whicja I have alluded, and from which it is quite
evident that this arrangement has been entered into quite
dditinon the
al route City
via
Trieste,to
unknown to you. I may be permitted to state shortly that
a company
give the
public
at a
speed very superior to that promised by the Peninsular and
the benefit has
been
of formedan a
Oriental, viz., 21 days to Bombay, and the memorials in
1 my possession from the city of Loudon, of Liverpool and