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

imposition of a property-tax.
Mr. J. GRATTAN gave to the ministry his entire confidence,
whether he viewed their policy in China, the colonies, or in
Ireland ; though he must not be understood as grounding
that confidence on their recent propositions, which he con-
sidered dangerous to the latter country, inasmuch as a fixed
duty on corn was calculated to transfer to the continent the
Irish trade in provisions. He thought, however, that the
blame of these measures was mainly attributable to Lord
Stanley, because of the manner in which he had sought to
carry his registration bill for Ireland through parliament.
Lord C. HAMILTON contended that the present House of
Commons had been called together under peculiarly favour-
able circumstances- to the present government, fur, at the
last election, a most unfair use had been made of her Ma-
jesty's name, in order to enlarge the number of their sup-
porters. If, in a House of Commons so called together,
they found themselves in a minority, they were not justified,
according to the spirit of the constitution, in retaining any
longer the administration of public affairs.
Sir G. STAUNTON entered into a justification of the policy
adopted by the government in respect to affairs in China,
and contended that the Duke of Wellington had acquitted
them of all blame regarding the war with China. Ile was
not surprised at the delay which had taken place in bringing
matters in that country to a conclusion, for he anticipated
that it would be a tedious affair; and he feared the divisions
in that house might have had their effect on the Chinese au-
thorities, and might have tended to prevent those negocia-
tions from having been brought to a close at an earlier
period. _ _ .

' Sir W. JAMES, in supporting the motion of Sir Robert
Peel, at once admitted that ministers were very fortunate in
the Chinese affair, as far as it had hitherto gone, but not-
withstanding their partial success in that instance, it was im-
possible, in viewing the whole scope and tendency of these
measures, to repose in them that confidence without which
•no government ought to hold power.
Mr. WALLACE contended that if the Queen's name was
',used at the last election by gentlemen on his side of the
louse, it was only in admiration of her having declared that
she would see equal justice done to all her subjects in Ire-
'land ; while, on the other band, her name was used by the
conservatives only for the purpose of being coupled with
abuse. (Cries of " No, no.") He said yes, yes, for such
,was the case. The hon. member then contended that nothing
was so good for the people as agitation, and the noble lord
(J. Russell) deserved credit for giving to the people this
great opportunity for agitating against the tyranny of the
landholders. _ .

Mr. CRESSWELL said. there had been so many recrimina-
tions with regard to hon. members travelling out of there-
cord in this debate that he should endeavour to confine
himself to the consideration of the resolution which the
right hon. baronet had proposed for their acceptance. He
would take up with that branch of it which his hon. and
learned friend the member for Shields had said was a truism,
and which declared that the government did not possess the
confidence of the house to a degree to enable them to carry
measures which they deemed essential to the welfare of the
country. He was surprised to bear the noble lord the secre-
tary for Ireland say that the government poSsessed a fair
share of the confidence of the house. He admitted that they
had as large a share of confidence as they deserved, but not
such a share as entitled them to carry on the government
with advantage to the country, and they themselves knew it.
Let the house look back to the time when they expelled the
right hon. baronet from office, by carrying a resolution that
no settlement of Irish tithes could be satisfactory which did
not embody the principle of the appropriation clause. Were
they sincere in the opinions they then expressed ? He would
not be guilty of saying that they were not sincere, for if so,
they bad obtained power by false pretences. (Loud opposi-
tion cheers,) :Yet, if they were sincere, they had remained
in office for six years without attempting to carry that prin-
ciple into effect. In 1835 they brought in a bill which passed
through this, but was defeated in the other house. In 1836
they brought in another bill, which was so delayed in this
house till the vacation that it never went to the other house.
In 1837, when the enemies of the church were to be appeased
by some measure of spoliation that would secure their sup-
port to the noble lord, and he could not rob the church in
the way in which he originally proposed, the scheme
for the abolition of church-rates was submitted to
the house, and carried, on the 22nd May by 287 against 282.
What was their opinion, then, of their own position ? Did
they think they had sufficient power to carry the measures
they deemed essential to the country ? And if they knew
that they did not possess the power to effectuate their object,
why should they attempt to disturb a system which it was
now ascertained had existed from time extending beyond the
period of legal memory. So much for the confidence of the
late House of Commons. What was their positfon in the
present house? This house met in the autumn of 1837 fora
short time, and again re-assembled in 1838, when they intro-
duced another tithe bill, and on the hon. member for Shef-
field proposing to insert the appropriation clause in it, they
refused to allow him. Still desirous to satisfy the wishes of
the enemies of the church, in 1839 they brought forward
their measure for the education .of the people, and, after
being obliged to make various modifications in it, at length
succeeded in having a majority of two in one of the fullest
houses that had ever met. Then came the Jamaica ques-
tion, in which he did not know what party they wished to
please; but their attempt to destroy the constitution of that
colony having been defeated, they retired from office, and
again returned under circumstances little calculated to in-
crease the confidence of the house in them. It would
ie session close without making some

f not then do to

effort to regain the confidence they had lost ; and, in de•
fiance of the warnings from this side of the house, they, in
in compliance with the hon. member for Greenock, threw
away £1,200,000 a-year of the public revenue. True it was
that a benefit was thereby conferred on some persons, but it
was principally on those who were best able to bear the bur-
den, and especially on those mercantile houses which could
afford to keep members of parliament in this house for the
purpose of franking their letters. On the motion of want of
confidence brought forward by his hon. friend the member
for Devonshire, in 1840, the noble lord wen by a majority of
20, there being-, he was certain, several members on both
sides who thought they could not support that motion, yet
would not vote that they had confidence in the government.
There was next the questron concerning the dignity of a
noble prince. The noble lord proposed a sum of £50,000 a
year. Hon. members at this side considered that, in the
present circumstances of the country, £30,000 would be suffi-
cient for him, and their views were supported by a majority
of this house. This was a proof that the house had no con-
fidence in the economy of the noble lord. Next, the hon.
member for Harwich brought forward a motion condemning
their financial policy, and carried it on a division against
them ; the house thus proving that they bad no confidence
in the financial wisdom of ministers. Next came the motion
of his hon. friend the member for North Durham, declaring
that the pension to Sir J. Newport ought not to be made a
precedent for future governments. In vain did the noble
lord say this was tantamount to a vote of want of confidence.
The house voted against him, thus proving that they had no
confidence in the economy, the financial wisdom, or the
political economy of the ministers. What then was the con-
fidence reposed io them ? Confidence merely to enable them
to shuffle through a session. After they had relinquished
their attempts to reform the system of voting in Ireland, the
noble lord, the member for North Lancashire, brought in
his bill, succeeded in carrying it against the government, and
was at last defeated, not by the votes of the house, but by
the speeches of honourable members who were opposed to
it, made for the purpose of delay. Then again. what had
the noble lord done in 1841 ? He had himself brought in a
bill to give to Ireland a new constitution. And at whose
instance was that measure brought forward ? Was it upon
the noble lord's own judgment? (Hear, hear.) If so, why
had it not been introduced before ? But no, it was not the
strength of his judgment that induced the noble lord to bring
forward that measure ; but it was the weakness of his posi-
tion, and the necessity he found himself under to do some-
thing to conciliate his extreme supporters. (Hear.) This
it was that had induced the noble lord again to stir up the
cauldron of political mischief, to let loose upon the people
the potent char ms of strife and agitation, and by throwing
over the anchors and the safeguards of the state, to endanger
the constitution of the country. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord had recently embarked in a new species of agitation in
Ireland, and, throwing over the representative system so
recently established, was seeking to establish an entirely
different system of representation in that country. Well, had
the noble lord and his coadjutors the confidence of the house in
respect to that measure ? No ; a majority of the house had
decided against its main provision. Then came their propo-
sitions of cheap timber and cheap corn ; and why were these
brought forward? Why was a measure now to be pressed
by the noble lord, which his colleague in another place, only
two years ago, had declared it would be an act of madness in
any Governmont, and, therefore, an act of treason against
the country on the part of any Government to propose?
(Hear, hear.)- Surely the declaration of the noble viscount
made in the other house was tantamount to that. And the
noble lord could not but be aware that those who supported
him in his proposition for a fixed duty on corn, did so not
on the ground that it was proper to maintain a protect-
ing duty on corn, but because they. looked upon it as
the first step towards a total abolition. (Hear, hear.)
This was clearly shown by the proceedings and the
speeches at the various corn law meetings by which the
country was now agitated. The noble lord obtained the sup-
port of the party around him, not because they had confidence
in his measures, but because they hoped to be able to extort
from his weakness and necessity all that they might think
proper to demand. (Hear, hear.) The government were
without any certain course, they had no chart to guide them,
and were content to run before the popular gale, and to con-
cede whatever was demanded. The noble lord could not
hope that the result of a dissolution would be to enable him
to carry these measures or to give him a majority. (Hear.)
Yet the noble lord thought he was entitled to stay in office
merely for the purpose of dissolving the parliament, and agi-
tating the country. (" Oh, oh," and cheers.)- Could any
one say that the government retained their offices for the
purpose of carrying on the business of the country? Was
not their object in bringing on the debate on the corn laws to
excite agitation and turbulence in the country ? (Hear, hear.)
There could be no other motive, for he would not suppose
that ministers were so deficient in wisdom as not to be aware
that that would be the effect of their proceedings. Could
they suppose that the motive of the noble lord and his col-
leagues was to fight the battle of the crown—as had been
stated—and to prevent the House of Commons from en-
croaching on its prerogatives ? Surely that would not be
urged by the noble lord as the reason for the course he was
now taking. It must be then that the object of ministers in
remaining in office and agitating those questions was to en-
deavour to render the representatives of the people odious
to the represented, and to excite such a feeling of odium and
throughout the country against the present House of
Commons, as might be the means of substituting for it a dif-
ferent House of Commons, the members of which would be
more subservient to their wishes, or rather the wishes of a
portion of their supporters. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord
might possibly succeed in agitating the country, but he
would fail in his object. In Stroud, the borough which the
noble lord represented, the eacitement had already com-
menced. The Globe newspaper of the 24th of May con-
tained an account of a meeting of many of the noble
lord's supporters in that borough, as extracted from the
Cheltenham and Gloucester Jounsal. [The hon. and learned
member then read an extract from the Globe newspaper,
giltvuslnsgella'ns accocA3nsutnittne°lfitas
prevailed
there.] And was it for this
meetingconstituents,
de
shcerlidb antg Sud,
thetr o u de
x,
coi ft
eLmoerndt J
that
purpose that, the noble
lord remained in office ? Was it
meet-
ings in the other towns,
and
that the
encourage
thetr triumph of democracy
might be exhibited throughout England, Ireland, and Scot.
land, and that we might se* the revolutionary principles of