The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-01-27 00:00:00

. .)
•

even though his conclusion might be erroneous, he pro-
ceeded to defend himself against the charge that he had
been guilty of treason to the agricultural interest. He
had seen it stated over and over again, that the power
which had elevated could also displace him, and over and
over again he had been menaced with that penalty. Now,
he valued not power for its patronage. Personal objects
he had none. He had served four Sovereigns, and to
each of them he had stated that he required no other re-
ward but the assurance that he had served them as a
faithful and a loyal subject. Power for personal objects
he wanted not—to be relieved from it with perfect honour,
so far from being a penalty, would be to him the greatest
of boons. He did not wish to be the Prime Minister of
England ; but, whilst he was so, he would hold office by
no servile tenure. He would hold it by no other obliga-
tion than that of serving the public interests. He con-
cluded his speech with an eloquent defence of his own
Conservative policy both at home and abroad, contending
that he had put an end to the murmurs of disaffection,
and had done his utmost to perform no easy task, namely,
that of reconciling the action of an ancient monarchy and
a proud aristocracy with that of a reformed House of
Commons.

Lord J. RUSSELL next rose to give an explanation of
his conduct during the recent interregnum in the Minis-
try—an explanation which he would have postponed to a
future day had not Sir R. Peel informed him that it would
be for his convenience if he made it at an early period of
the session. Ile then stated the circumstances under
which he had been called upon by her Majesty to form an
administration on the Bth of last December. On the 10th
he saw her Majesty on that subject. He should have
declined under ordinary circumstances to accept office
himself, as his party were in a minority of 90 or 100 in the
House of Commons, and as that fact alone must have led
before long to a dissolution of Parliament. When he
mentioned to her Majesty that such was his feeling, she
placed in his hand a document signed by Sir R. Peel, in
which he promised to give every facility in his power to
his successor, whoever that person might be, for the set-
tlement of the question of the corn laws. He then told
her Majesty that the case was altered, and that he would
consult with his former colleagues on the subject. He
did so, and they thought the new Government ought to
know what were the intentions of the late Ministry on the
subject; but Sir R. Peel had given him (Lord J. Russell)
to understand that he did not think it for the benefit of
the public service that he should communicate to his suc-
cessor the details of his intended measure. He (Lord J.
Russell) had then drawn up an outline of his own mea-
sure, and had wished to communicate it to Sir R. Peel, in
order that he might, if possible, obtain his consent to it
along with that of Sir Robert's late colleagues. Sir R.
Peel, however, had thought it not reasonable that a per-
son not in the service of the Crown should be consulted on
the details of a measure proposed by Ministers of the Crown.
The noble lord then stated at great length the various
steps which he afterwards took to form a government on
the principle of the immediate repeal of the corn laws, and
his subsequent failure. In so doing he referred to a writ-
ten communication from Sir R. Peel to her Majesty, in
which he declined giving such a previous pledge to sup-
port Lord J. Russell's plan for settling the corn laws as
Lord John Russell required. After stating the objections
which Earl Grey had stated to one of his colleagues, and
the impossibility of overcoming it, the noble lord pro-
ceeded to express his gratitude to her Majesty for the
confidence with which she had treated him throughout
these transactions, and for the facilities which she had
given him throughout them. In justice to Sir R. Peel he
stated, that there was nothing in his communication
which would have rendered his (Lord J. Russell's) task
of settling the question of the corn laws more difficult;
and in justice to Earl Grey, that his objections to one of
his colleagues arose from nothing but public motives.
He hoped that on the corn laws the house might soon
come to such an agreement as would enable them to set-
tle the question. Famine might come upon the country,
and would they have the settlement of the corn laws de-
ferred till a period when they must submit to a humiliat-
ing capitulation ? When Sir R. Peel brought forward his
measure in lieu of the existing corn law, which he con-
demned as a failure though he was the author of it, he
(Lord J. Russell) would offer such observations as he
might think necessary upon it. At present, however, he
would abstain. The noble lord concluded his speech by
expressing his disappointment that Sir R. Peel had not
brought forward a comprehensive plan for the pacification
of Ireland, and by declaring his intention, whether in or
out of office, to give his hearty assent to all measures for
the benefit of the country. He hoped that the freedom of
industry and commerce might date from the commence-
ment of the present session.
Mr. DISRAELI expressed his intention of adhering to
the principles of protection which had sent him into that
house, and which would have compelled him to resign his
seat if he had conscientiously relinquished them. He did
not envy Sir R. Peel his feelings in the apologetic address
which be had that night delivered to those who were once
his party in that house. The opinions which Sir R. Peel
had that night expressed might as well have been expressed
when he held a position in that house scarcely less influ-
ential than his present—namely, when he was the leader
of the Conservative opposition. What could the house
think of a statesman who, having served four sovereigns,
was at last compelled by the observation which he had
made in the last three or four years to change his opinions
on a subject which must have been repeatedly brought
under his consideration in every point of view in the ma-
nifold debates of nearly 20 years ? Such a statesman
might be conscientious, but he was at any rate unfortu-
nate, and ought not to address his former friends in the
tone of menace. He knew of no parallel to Sir R. Peel's
conduct save that of a late Capitan Pasha of Constantino-
ple, who having received the command of a fleet from the
Sultan to attack Mehemet Ali, steered that fleet at once
into the enemy's port. The admiral was called a traitor;
but he defended himself from the charge, on the ground
that he was an enemy to war, that be bated a prolonged
contest, and that he had terminated it by betraying the
cause of his master. He denounced the speech of Sir R.
Peel that evening as a glorious example of egotistical rhe-
toric, and censured him in the severest terms for the
shameful manner in which he had turned round upon his
former party. It was not the favour of his sovereign
which had placed Sir Robert in office, but the sacred
cause of protection, by which a parliament had been dis-
solved, and a nation taken in. Sir Robert Peel a great
statesman, who was always marching after the events
of his age! He was just as much a great statesman
as he who had got up behind a carriage was a great whip.
Both were the disciples of progress; and both were
anxious for a good place. Who was he that dared to tell
the House that an ancient monarchy and a proud aris.
tocracy were useless lumber. and that he was the only
man who could reconcile their action to that of a re-
formed House of Commons, whose reforma ion he had
resisted to the utmost ? When Sir Robert said that hir
Conservative policy had put down agitation, notwith-
standing his (Mr. Disraeli s) knowledge of the extent to
which Parliamentary face could sometimes go, he was
perfectly thunderstruck. When he said that, too, in the
presence of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, he had achieved
one of the great attributes of an orator, for he had made
an impression on the House. He wondered how Sir Ro-
bert could assert that his proposed legislation had no re-
ference to the agitation on the Corn Laws; and he con-
chided a bitter invective against Sir R. Peel, who, he
said, had been deserted by Lord Stanley because he had
deserted all the principles by which the Ministry had ob-
tained office,—by declaring that he was not the Minister
who ought to abrogate the Corn Laws. He hoped that,
whatever might be the opinion of the House as to free
trade, it would resist to the utmost the free politics of
such statesmen as Sir R. Peel.
.

A noble Lord protested, in the name of the people of
Ireland, against the total repeal of the Corn Laws.
Mr. MILES said, that no amendment had been moved
on the address, because on an early occasion next week an
opportunity would be given to the House of expressing a
decision on the extraordinary change of principle avowed
that night by Sir R. Peel. What had become of those
members of his Cabinet who had first objected to his
plan ? Were they determined to sacrifice everything to
their idol? If so, he hoped they would sacrifice their
seats, and make an appeal at once to their constituents.
He gave notice on behalf of himself and several other
members that the strongest constitutional opposition
would be given to his plan, and that every impediment
would be made use of to prevent its passing into law.
After a few words to the same effect from Colonel
SIBTIIORP, the address was agreed to without a dis-
sentient voice.