The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-02-24 00:00:00

higher respect for talent and consistency than I do, says not
one word on the subject; but that, on the coutrary, my right
hon. friend (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) stood as high in the
estimation of the country as he ever din before. But he says
that a great public principle is involved here. My hou. friend
tiie member for Newcastle, who followed in the seine course,
explained a little more/what that general principle was, which I
confess, in my own mind, had been left in doubt. (Hear, hear.)
He had declared that no public charges were made on his
public conduct, but that, moreover, if public charges had been
wade elsewhere, that the House of Commons could not take
cogiiizaece of them; that if they had been made, the house was
not to take advantage of them. The right hon. gentleman Was,
he was convinced, from what had fallen from bin;, not satisfied
with his position; he hailfelt that in that position in which his
friends desired to place him,' he ought not only to be uncon-
victed, hut unsuspected. 1 agree with him, My right honour-
able friend has met the charges boldly—be has met them freely
—he hassmet them unanswered—without au intention of their
being answered; and 1 say, then, of these grounds the House
of Commons cannot degrade the right him. gentleman from the
situation in which he now stands.a-(Great cheer ing.) I come
then to the public principle which is involved in this ques-
tion. What is there that this house cannot give the go-by
in this as you did on a former occasion? The person whom
you select to he your speaker should, they. contend, .be known
to entertain opinions in conformity with toe majority of that
house. Is that a new principle? Was not the proposition inet
by Lord Grey's administration? The declaration says th
at
that was not a proposition of public principle; but if this be a
great public principle, surely that which we gave the go-by in
1833 was of infinitely greater importance ; but I ask the house
—I do not question the consistency of those gentlemen who
held that opinion in 1833—but las whether in following tip
those opinions in 1833 a complete refutation was not given to
such a principle? But, sir,. in 1833 they saysfhere was no ques-
tion upon which there had beet' a direct uppeal to the country.
Let the country look to 1831, in which an appeal was agitated,
and in which a great principle was involved—l allude to the
corn bill. Was there ever a question_ on -which this principle
was brought forward? And what was the first act of that par-
liament but to elect a speaker whom they :knew to entertain
opinions different from the administration and the majority of
the house? (Hear.) I might inquire of the right hon. gentle-
man who proposed Mr. Abercromby, in what respect the cir-
cumstances of 1833 and 1833 have so fat; differed, that we should
elect a different speaker? But I have pointed out to him, that.
in one respect at least the circumstances of the present times'
are not stronger—they are not stronger, with regard to the
question of ,the speaker, in the general proposal of the house.
fhose principles being put to issue, as they were in 1833, what
are the different circumstances? I ask :again and again, and
t.know. not what those 'circumstances arta_ eaaept atM to 'take
the doctrine of the hon. gentleman, the seconder of Mr. Aber-
cromby, and that doctrine is, that this is not k test of principle,
but a test or the strength-of party. (Cheers from the ministe-
rial benches, reiterated by the opposition.) We are told it is
essential to the Crown that uo mistake. should exist as id the
sentiments of the house; that na•Mista-ke.in 1833 could have •
been entertained, because upon both these occasions the him.
gentleman asserted that the government—wielding the whole
power of the government, in proposing a speaker, must consent
to such a sacrifice as the expediency of the moment required.
If it were a great public principle, no expediency, nothnig on
earth ought to have allowed a government to have acted so.
But the hon. gentleman says circumstances have now mate-
rially changed. They arc changed in one respect certainly,
that we were in office in 1833, and that we are not in office in
1835. (Laughter and cheers.) I really don't mean to say this
invidiously. lion. gentlemen may perhaps not belieate me when
I say I speak in all sincerity, and I use the words of one of the
hon. gentlemen who proposed Mr. Abercromby. The difference
between the cases of 1833 and 18:35 has been stated by him
to be, that in one case a Speaker was proposed by those who
wielded the control of the government, tiriving a certain major-
ity in their favour, and that in the present instance the majority-
may be less, and that, therefore, it is essential we should take
this opportunity of signifying to the Crown that we have no con
fidence in -the administration. (Hear, hear.) Is this the
principle? (Hear, hear.) Well then) if it is, I say that an act
of ,grosser injustice—(treat cheering front the ministerial
benches)—an act savouring more of resentment than of justice
—never could be perpetrated, than taking a decision of that
point upini a question materially affecting the' honour and the
character of the house itaelf. (Cheers from the ministerial
benches.) -I say, sir, if it be the intention to try the strength
of parties, let that question be tnaufully brought to issue upon
an address for the remora! of-the ministers. (llear, hear.)
But 1 say, do not on the one hand endanger and damage the
character—(cries of "No, no," and "Hear, hear," from the
ministerial benches) —l,say, do not commit such an injustice—
(loud cries of "No, no,")—and 1 appeal to the honourand the
candour of gentlemen in this house, when I ask them if it be
not an injustice—(" Hear, hear," and continued cries of " Nu,
no,")—tu remove a Speaker against whom you have not only
admitted -that there is .no present charge, but whom you have
even admitted to be pre-eminently qualified for the situation—
if it be not an injustice to remove him, for the purpose of as-
certaining the strength of parties. (Cheer. and " No, no.")
But we are told that by the election of a Speaker this day we
are to judge of the strength of parties. If the decision of this
question is to be taken as an indication of the opinions of the
house—if the sentiments of the Sneaker should be in accord-
ancewith those of the majority or the memburs'of this house,
will the gentlemen Who support the hon. the member for Edin-
burgh take upon them to declare that his-principles are their
principles—(cheers from the ministerial side)—that his politics
are their politics,' and that by his pubiic declarations they ,are
prepared to he boded ? (Ctiutinued cheering.) I knOw ,that
the bon. member for East Surrey (Major -Beauclerk) will not
venture to make such a statement. 1 know that he has 100
been a supporter of the whig party, and will not be held bouts
by the opinions of the right hon. geotlemah(M r. Aber
But if my support should be taken as an indication th
cur-in the opinions et' either of the right hen. gentleine,,
say, that I widely differ from them 'both,, but especially ice
ease of the right hon. the meniner fdrEanihurgh, I see groundi-:
for refusing him my support. On many questions lam op-
posed to him: The right him. gentleman is tar_slturteni the
-,,sj ..fp.ritkcinentattre---stuasetoractdaily advocate leis --
nial parliaments. He supports, and lam opposed to, vote by
ballot. lam against the voluntary principle of supporting the
church, although not possessed of so much experience on that
subject as the right hou. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) I have
thus stated how far 1 differ from him- on these important
questions, and, therefore, am I to' be told that by supporting
his nomination to the chair, I havendopted all his political
views? (Loud -cries of "No, no," from- • the opposition.)
Why, if that be not the case, what becomes of the statement of
hon. gentlemen that the decision of this question will be the
test of political strength, (Cries of " frinn the.oppo-
sition.) One of two alternatives must be adopted—either the
decision must be taken as a test of political strength or not.—
Are the-gentlemen opposite, who support the right honourable
gentleman—are they all, I ask, prepared to adopt all his politi-
cal sentiments ? If- not, then this decision.cannot be regarded
as a test of political strength. It would be hnpertinent in me
tp meution the name of any gentleman as qualified to discharge
with dignity and impartiality the ardui.usaluties of speaker of
this house, but if feelings of delicacy did nut prevent me, I could
lay before the house a nicn —who, from his know.edge, setting
aside the experience of the right hen. gentleman below me (Sir
C. M. Sutton) was preferable to any other with whom I. am
'acquainted, and whose political opinions approached nearest to
my own. I would select the right hon: gentleman who repre-
sents the town of Cambridge (Mr. itiee.) If my vote is to-be
taken as an indication that my opinions ate in accordance with
the political opinions of the gentleman whom I support, mine
accord more with that right hon. gentleman's than with those
of the right hon. member fur Edinburgh; but L disclaim the
doctrine altogether. I neither agree with the political princi-
ples of the right hon. gentleman below me, (Sir C. Sutton,)
nor with those of the member for. Edinburgh, but 1 stand on. the
declaration which I made befoie—a declaration consistent with
all iny political sentiments and opinions, consistent also "lvith all
the arguments which have been heard from this side of the house,
and not attempted to be refuted, that no case has been made
out which can induce this house to withdraw its support from
the right hon. gentleman who has for so many years filled the
chair. In conclusion, I have to repeat that it is on public
grounds, and not from any agreement in political Principles, I
support the motion of the noble lord, the member fur South
Lancashire.