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

votes whether or not that Reform Bill should be revived in
the present Parliament. They were decided by votes of
confidence and no confidence in. her Majesty's advisers.
Hitherto it had been the recognised system that when an
opposition came into office they -continued to act in office
upon principles which had governed their conduct in oppo-
sition. But her Majesty's present advisers acted upon a
different system. Upon accession to office, they, with re-
gard to two different questions—namely, the India Bill and
the reform question—thought it' necessary to saddle them-
selves with the engagements of their predecessors. With
regard to the India Bill, up to the latest hour, up to the
very day which preceded their accession to power, they
opposed the measure proposed by their predecessors, and the
night before their accession to office they divided in great
numbers against the bill. Well, upon accepting office they
entirely renounced the opinions which they had formed and
expressed on the subject, and introduced a bill formed upon
the principles of their predecessors, namely, the transfer of
the power of the East India Company to ;the Crown. It
was a bill which was extravagant in its conception and in
execution, which scarcely outlived the day on which it was
proposed, and it was speedily abandoned by its authors.
But, nevertheless, it embodied the principles of their oppo-
nents, their predecessors, and departed from their own
principles. (Hear.) Then, with regard to the Reform Bill,
they acted on similar principles. Having systematically
opposed all reform in Parliament, they adopted the obliga-
tions of their predecessors to propose a reform bill; and we
had their measure in the last session of the last Parliament.
There was one point adverted to by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer on the first night of the debate. He said he
would not admit that any party was to be admitted to have
a monopoly of any question, and he added, that with re-
gard to the Reform Bill he could not admit that the Liberal
party was to be exclusively entitled to produce measures of
reform. He (Sir Cornewall Lewis) entirely acceded to the
doctrine of the right honourable gentleman, that there
was no party in that house that was entitled to claim
any such exclusive privilege. But the principle for
which he contended was, that that party which had con-
sistently advocated certain principles on the question
of reform was the party which was most fitted to intro-
duce a measure on the subject, and which was most able
to overcome the practical diffieulties which necessarily arose
with regard to the settlement of such a question. (Hear.)
And when the right hon. gentleman referred to some ex-
amples of former times—when, fbr instance, he said that
the Duke of Richmond and Mr. Pitt, eminent members of
the Tory party, had proposed measures on the subject of
reform, he would remind the right hon. gentleman that the
Duke of Richmond of that day was not only a Whig, but a
Whig and—adopting the phraseology of the day—" some-
thing more ;" and that when Mr. Pitt proposed a measure
of reform, he likewise was a member of the same party.
What he contended was, that the party who had from the
beginning connected itself with the question of reform was
better qualified both by its leaders and by its supporters to
propose and carry through Parliament suecessfill and prac-
tical measures of reform. The right hon. gentleman then
proceeded to criticise the financial measures of the Govern-
ment, and contended that nearly all the calculations in their
budget of laSt year had been falsified by the events. He
concluded by saying that for these and other reasons he
should give his vote in favour of the amendment.
Sir J. PAKINGT ON—Sir, I think that the question
how any Government has dealt with the defences of the
country, ought fairly to be, and, I trust, will be in this case
an element in deciding the question of how far that Go-
vernment is or is not entitled to the confidence of the coun-
try—(cheers)---and if ever that considerationought to enter
into the decision of such a question as this, I think the pre-
sent moment is the time, considering the great armaments
which are now in progress, and the unusual course which
undoubtedly her Majesty's Government have taken in this
respect. Before adverting, however, to that part of the sub-
ject there are one or two points in the discussion which we
have heard within the last two or three days to which I would
beg very briefly to allude. In the first place I beg to say that I
heartily concur with those of my friends on this side of the
house who have signified their freedom from any objection to
the course which hon. gentlemen opposite have taken on this
occasion. lam one of those who complained, and I did so
loudly and justly, of the course which the noble lord
,the
member for London adopted in the late Parliament. I make
no such complaint now. I think that gentlemen opposite
have a perfect right to raise the qnestion in the way they
have done, and I confess that I am more disposed to make
this concession, after watching this debate, and hearing, as I
think, the absolute and complete failure of every attempt to
bring any serious charge against the Government. (Cheers.)
It is true the noble viscount the member for Tiverton did
make an attempt to inculpate the Government and bring
certain charges against them; but after indulging in a
number of jokes and a certain amount of abuse more suo—
(oh, oh, from the Opposition)—when I say abuse, I mean
good-humoured abuse, at all events—(oh, oh, and a laugh)
—after finding fault in that sort of tone—(hear, hear)—and
using a good deal of that sort of language, the noble vis-
count found himself compelled to abandon the attempt, and
to take up the ground which is the only one open to gentle-
men opposite—that of saying, almost in plain language,
"We have nothing to say against you, but we want your
places." (Loud cheers.) Now, sir, that is really the ques •
tion at issue. (Reiterated cheers.) It is a question which
I recognise your right to raise, and you have raised itfairly.
It cannot be disguised ; and you have been unable to throw
any cloud over the obvious character of the vote. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman who has just addressed the house
professed to enter into the reasons upon which he supports
the amendment, but I listened in vain for
,anything that
could at all alter the character of this motion.. I listened in
r- Sr_7.--411ingpat appeared to Inc> 4. ar9ount to a mason
or refusing conn ence to rue .rovernment, or for passing
anything like 'a Vete of censure upon them. My right hon..
friend (Mr. S. Herbert) avowed, I think, in a more open
manner than. any one else, that ho felt the necessity of justi-
fying such a motion as this by reasons, and he proceeded
to give what he no doubt thought were very sufficient rea-
sons for refusing his confidence to the Government; but in
his case, also, I listened in vain for anything that in my mind
justified SuchU step as that which the Opposition are now
. .
taking. The speech of my right hon. friend appeared to me
to consist chiefly of a reply to certain arguments that had:been
used by my hon. friend the member for • Sunderland (Mr.
Lindsay) and among these arguments the one upon which
the right hon. gentleman dwelt the most was the argument
which the hon. member for Sunderland had used, founded
upon the fact that the present Government had consented to
the Jew Bill,' But then the right hon. gentleman proceeded
to dwell upon what he called a reason for his supporting this
vote of Want 'Of confidence, which I own appeared to me to
lie of the most inconsistent and most insignificant character.
I allude to that part of his speech in which ho referred to
attempts on the part of the Government to conciliate and to
do justice to our Roman Catholic fellow- subjects. Assuming
the truth and accuracy of all that the right hon. gentleman
said, and,• as far as I am concerned as one member of the
Government, I entirely. accept it, how the right hon. gentle
man could twist that into a reason for a vote of want of
confidence I cannot for onnmornent divine. The right hon.
gentleman said it was perfectly right, and he then pro-
ceeded to make a charge against us, not that we were wrong
now—no, he thinks us right now—but that our being right
now was attended with the greatest inconsistency, because,
said he, this is a party which has always refused liberal
concessions to the Roman Catholics, and he illustrated that
view by mentioning a vote of this house in the year 1854,
when we carried an amendment against a grant proposed
by the noble viscount opposite for, Roman Catholic chap-
lains in gaols ; and the right hon. gentleman argued from
the fact' that, whatever we may be now with regard to our
Roman' Catholic fellow-subjects, it was' gross inconsistency
and a great change of purpose on ourpart. (Hear, hear.)
So fares I am concerned, I am glad to hear that cheer,
because' I am' now about to make a serious complaint 'of
very great injustice to myself personally on-the part of the
right hononrable gentleman in having named one as speak-
ing upon that occasion. (" No ; voted,"• from the Opposi-
tion.) I beg pardon; the right 'honourable gentleman
said that Sir John Pakington was one of those who spoke
on that occasion. (" No, no ; voted."). • I.hope honourable
gentlemen will not interrupt me. On a matter id which I
am personally concerned I was not likely to make such a
mistake. (Cheere.) lam right in what lam stating. The
right hon. gentleman is himself prceent,'and he will correct
me if I am in error. He named Sir J: •Pakington as having
spoken on that occasion, and he then went on to name my-
self, frig right hon. friend near me; and several others, as
having Voted. (Hear, hear:) Well; I ask every hon. mem-
ber in this house whether any inference but one Sean be
drawn froth his language ? .owrx I was astonished 4t what
he said—l knew that' the .ellargp crt refusing toleration to
my RoniMi. 'Catholic fellov4-subjecte,- and of ha;7ing spoken
din theitingein which he said I spoke; was foreign to every
feeling-al-1N life and to every word' that•l ever uttered in
this house. I confess I could not account for the fact of my
language being so perverted; because every gentleman who
heard what 'fell from the right hon: gentleman must have
inferred that' I had spoken in the sense 'of the amendment
as being opposed to the concession too my Roman Catholic
fellow-subjects which was then proposed. I think I have a
right to expect from him that if he referred to me on such a
subject as this he should not misrepresent or impute to me
'that which is so foreign to my nature and to every word
that I ever uttered in this house. We have sat together in
this house for teeny years, and have been on friendlyterms;
time was when we sat together on the same bench—(cheers
andlaughter)—and I have always regretted, without ques-
tioning his /Orient- or hia motives, that the course of public
events prevented our doing Belanger. (Hear.) I think the
right boll. gentleman might have recollected that so long age
as the Goterrinierit of Sir R. Peel I was one of a minority
on this side of the houee who did not hesitate to rise and ad-
vocate the liberal policy of Sir R. Peel towards the Roman
Catholics. The right bih. gentleman might have recollected
that at a more recent date, when the friends with whom
-act almost unanimously supported my hon. friend the mem-
ber for North Warwickshire in toting against the
Mayneoth grant, I stood almost alone of my party in
saying that I -Omild not concur in that policy, and
going into the lobby against it. The right hon• gen-
tleman might have recollected my still more recent
'eff6ffs'in the CatiS of public education,- en which I hat.
never hesitated to avow my desire to• extend. educati
wotilleta.
'all blasigile* of my fellow-subjects; without any referenee
man
ie
eifeit t 6 relig as a pubious opinions. Havingll was
acted Ohtliose principles ler a great number of ;ears,to-
surprised when I heard the charge broti"ht
1 t,i,taf.omsgolren at
nieht with re and to reY in 1864.
ArstifiCe of time e±aCtly of our pre-
*hat I shaid forgotten
therefore
Went to the library to consult the testa] recur
Ceedingri and I found it was true that Opposition.)ted for the
amendment: (" Hear, hear.," from the lf
1?1'?! Oentyir derivelsatisfactiehn fryofilmi
nthotatbfeadetisptohseeydatroe
ey
welcome ,o trite, ; tito I think t
cheer when I inform them wholrecsatid atheleoe,casetoon; (Thee
fro h. h t th
right hon. gentleman read
the admission, an to make it
effect that he wished to mAane
oesibleto bemisunderstood,t at
broadly, and in a maunerimp h
to providespiritual instruction for
he held it to be necesearY
all the inmates of gaols; that the mthiantu t.oebpjercotp;ostehdatbyhLe oorbd-
Palnierston did not accomplish
-was proposed; that he objected to jectedt not to the minute of the noble viscount itself, but to
the shape in which it
the money being -
distributed amongst Roman Catholic
use in many gaols the inmates might
chaplains only,. because
not be of that reli on, but the religion of other dissentingbodies, and that he should have no objection to the minute
if the eY
were distributed amongst all sects alike—(loud
toon
cheers.) I migh!: have been mistaken, proceeded the right
, the vote I then gave. I might have
hon. gentleman
come to an erroneane conclusion, but I hope I have con-
vinced the house that I am not open to the imputation
which the -ight hon. gentleman the member for Wilts has
conveyed, that I bad refused every concession to my Roman
Catholic fellow-Aubjects in the nature of providing
spiritual instruction for them in. gaols. (Hear.)' I pass
now to the accusations which have been directed
against her Majesty's Government, which consist