The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-06-04 00:00:00

Dr. LUSIHNGTON felt it necessary, after the part he bad
taken in a recent debate, to defend the course he was about
to pursue on the present occasion. He thought the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer wrong to couple three great measures
together—measures which stood upon different principles—
and to expect the house to take them as a whole ; but on the
other hand, he could not assent to the proposition that those
who votcd against one of those measures had thereby given
a vote of want of confidence in ministers. The right hon.
gentleman contended that the ministry was perfectly justified
in maintaining office, and appealing to the people against the
majority of the house. He then stated various reasons why
he intended to support the government against the motion of
Sir R. Peel, one of the principal of which was, that he could
not consent to place the education of the people, a matter of
the utmost importance, in the hands of an exclusive party.
Sir W, FOLLETT said he would not charge the right hon.
gentleman with inconsistency, because he was about to give
probably his last vote in that house in favour of her Majesty's
ministers, whom he had invariably supported, except on one
occasion, when he thought one of their measures calculated
to injure a cause which, during a long life, he had most an-
xiously advocated. The hon. gentleman then said that the
fault he found with the government was not that they intend-
ed to dissolve the parliament and appeal to the people, but
that they persevered in holding office, bringing forward mea-
sures for discussion which they knew would not be passed in
this parliament—which they did not intend should be passed
by this parliament—but the discussion of which they knew
would serve the purposes of agitation, and tend to give a
chance of a majority at the approaching general election.
The people, however, would not be agitated to the extent
expected, for they were too wise to suffer the foundations of
society to be upturned, and class placed in array against class,
merely for the purpose of keeping a certain set of persons in
office. So little of the confidence of the house did the minis-
try possess, that since they had themselves declared that they
did not possess its confidence, they had never been able to
carry a single measure through parliament without the con-
currence of his right hon. friend Sir R. Peel. This conti-
nued inability to carry any measure without the assent of
the opposition, and their continuance under such circum-
stances in office, was without any parliamentary precedent,
and was of itself a sufficient justification for the motion of
want of confidence.

Sir GEORGE GREY instanced the case of the reform bill
in 1831 as a precedent for the course pursued now. Earl
Grey's government on that occasion brought forward the
reform bill for discussion in a parliament by which he knew
it would not be passed, and yet the right hon. bart. (Sir J.
Graham), who now found fault with the ministry for perse-
vering in bringing forward the corn laws for discussion in a
parliament which would not pass them, was himself a mem-
ber of the government of Earl Grey. The right hon. gent.
then entered into a defence of the measures of the present
ministry, in the course of which he said he had no doubt but
that Sir R. Peel would be able to govern Ireland very well if
left to himself, but that he was surrounded by those from
whose influence he would find it impossible to free himself.
Mr. HANDLEY denied that anything he had ever said could
be fairly construed into a want of confidence in the ministry.
The utmost he had ever said was, that if their having the
power to bring forward the corn laws depended on his vote,
they should never have that power. He was challenged by
the right hon. member for Pembroke with being inconsistent,
after such a sentence, in giving his confidence to the govern-
ment. He might be turned out of his seat for doing so, but
if such should be the case he would lose it because of his ad.
herence to his party and his principles, while the right hon.
baronet was turned out by the honest grey coats of Cumber-
land because he was false to both. The hon. member then
adverted to the question of the corn laws, and asked the right
hon. bart. (Sir R. Peel) to give an answer to a plain question
—namely, whether he would continue to the agriculturists
the protection they now enjoyed ; or if he would not give an
answer, would he allow an inference to be drawn ? For if
he did neither, he must bid adieu to the character for candour
which he was anxious to maintain with the agriculturists.
Adjourned.