The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-02-27 00:00:00

FERtlvAity 27, 1835.4..

. . .
doubt the propriety of leaving power in the bands of men so en -
cumstanced as they had been, by the defalcation of strength
which these noble lords had experienced. He then addressed the
rouse on what had been said respecting the assumption of potter
ay the Duke of Wellington, and showed that this had frequently
ocen done by the whigs themselves. Although, however, he
'tad not taken any part iu procuring the dismissal of the late
aoverninent—although he could not from circumstances hold
communicution with any.of those with whom he had now the
honour to act, much less with the highest authority in the state,
as to the propriety or policy of that dismissal, still, by the as-
sumption of office, he did conceive that the responsibility of the
change which had taken place was transferred from the Crown
to its advisers; and .he was ready—be the majority against hint
what it might—to take all the responsibility which properly be- •
longed to him, and to submit to any consequences to which the
assumption of that responsibility might expose, him. . (Loud
cheers.) lie did not, then, hesitate W express it as his opinion
that the act by which the last government was removed was
justifiable. (Hear, hear.) He would, for the purpose of prov-
ing that proposition, take a review of the circumstances of the
country t'or some years past, looking back to the meeting of the
i
reformed parliament u,18:33. It would be seen that that go-
vernment which was formed under the auspices of Lord Grey.
and which had carried the reform bill, continued in a successful
course fora certain period. Was he one of those who offered
any opposition to the great change which had been effeced?
Was he not the first to avow, in 1833, that the tactics of party
were nu longer applicable to the government of the country,
and that he would give his support to the government of Lord
“reyas long as that government attempted to act-upon the
principle of maintaining the institutions of the country, not ex-
cluding the improvement of them ? Did he seek for opportu-
nities of embarrassing that goyernment? How many opportu-
nities had there not been of which he might have availed him-
self if he had been solicitous to obtain power—how many oppor-
tunities presented themselves by taking advantage of which he
might have obstructed the course of the government of Lord
Grey? (Hear, hear.) When the House of Commons deter-
, mined by a vote of. one night to repeal the malt-tax, and he
heard that vote inust necessarily be followed by the removal of
Lord Althorp from his place in the government, by his imme-
diate resignation, in consequence of his declared inability to
concede on this point the demand of a majority of the house,
consistently with the maintenance of public credit—did he (Sir
R. Peel) seek any plausible pretext.(loud cheering) of joining
those who were upon that queotion opposed to the government.
and thereby increase its embarrassment? (Hear, hear.) Did
he not tender the advice that the house should reconsider that
vote, and did he not share the unpopularity of rescinding the
resolution for the removal of the tax in question? (Hear, hear.)
He would also draw the attention of the arouse to what his con-
duct had been when the noble lord (Stanley) then secretary
for the colonies brought forward the measure for the settle-
ment of the great question of slavery. It mould be recollected
that the noble lord had at first proposed a loan of £15,000,(0h
and that afterwards, to the surprise of a large .number of that
house, as well as the' public generally, found it necessary to
change his proposition into a grant of L 20.000,000. Theoeh he
(Sir ft. Peel) differed front the noble lord as to that measure
in some matters of detail, -still. he.had noltiaiitated to suaaport
the noble lord in his' proposition for the grant, or to do all in
his power to persuade the House of Commons to sanction that
vote of compensation to the planters—a vote essential to the
success of the measure and deeply involving the public honour.
Ileasoning upon the historical facts to which he had referred
on this subject, Sir Robert said, could any man believe that
this was pardoned in the good whip times ? or could any man
believe that any dangers could wise from the precedent made
by the Duke of Wellington's taking temporarily the offices he
had necessarily filled in order to wait the arrival of another iu-
dividual whom he thought fit fot the office of prime minister of
' England? (Hear.) l'he noble duke stated in his letter to.
him (Sir Robert Peel) that he had advised the Kink to send for
him as his majesty's prime minister, and that he had determin-
ed to assume these offices himself, because he thought nothing
would be so unfair as to ask him (Sir IL Peel) to take upon
himself the management of an administration, the whole of
Which had not been left to hislormation, and further that if he
appointed other individuals to exercise the high duties of those
offices, he (Sir H. Peel) might probably he under the embar-
rassment of advising the King to remove them. It was to re-
move and obviate such an emoarrassnient and difficulty, and to
leave the appointments to him, that the Duke of Wellington
stated in his letter that he thought it better to the crown itself,
and fairer to him (Sir R. Peel,) to make an arrangement in its
nature and character temporary. (Cheers.) So much fur that
question. He now came to the subject of the dissolution of the
late parliament. He had been asked whether lie took. upon
himself the responsibility of that proceeding, and, without a, mo-
; ment's hesitation, he would say that lie did take upon him-
self the responsibility of that dissolution. (Cheers.) *. The mo-
ment be returned to this country to undertake the arduous
duties now imposed upon him, he did determine.that he would
leave no constitutional effort untried to enable him satisfactorily
to discharge the trust reposed in him, and be did fear that if he
had met the late parliament, which had so often declared its un-
bounded confidence in the late government, he should not find
the same disposition to place unbounded confidence in the ad-
ministration over which he had been called upon to preside,
and therefore it was that he had made his appeal to higher au-
thorities than those who had declared and who had boasted that
his government could not call to a division more than 120 mem-
bers, and who were determined to withhold from them a fair
trial and to extinguish them•without a hearing. (Loud cheers.)
Notwithstanding the specious reasons which had been urged.
he believed it would be found that whenever there had occurred
an extensive change of government, for some reason or other
a dissolution of the parliament generally followed. He had been
told, and indeed it had been implied in the course .of this de-
bate, that although he might have been no party to the *dismis-
sal of the late Ministry, and although he was utterly ignorant
of such a course, yet that he ought to have advised the throne
to recall the'governrnent of Lord Melbourne, and that he should
hay considered himself disqualified from undeitaking the go-
vernment of the country. The whole ground of objection to
his possession of power was, that in consequence of the revolu-
tion in power which had taken place, and of the necessity to net
in the spirit and on the principles of the reform bill, he was unfit
for power, and therefore ought to have declined it. (Hear hear,
from the opposition-benches.) He had never considered the
reform bill to be a machines the secret of which was only knOwn
to those by whom i. had beet; constructed. or that its effect was
to be the exclusieh of any poation of the King's subjects from
their Minaret., s service. (Cheers.) No sacrifice of prinZiple
was requited from him by the King; on the contrary, he was
&fared pi, form an administration such as seemed to him to be
best for the public service, to adopt ouch measures as he'con-
ceived most likely to advance the public interests; arid' he
would therefore ask any man outside the walls of parliament,
and free from the contagion of party, whether he wouldtiot en-
tertain a mean opinion of him (Sir R. Peel) had he, under such
circumstances; said to the King —" I decline your service; I
never can pi•opose measures that will satisfy the present House
,of Commons, and I would therefore advise you to resort to some
other quarter for assistance." (Cheers.) It had also been
urged against him that he and those with whom he had acted
in theCommons' House of Parliament were at constant variance
with the reform governments of Earl Grey and of Lord Mel-
bourne, and that they had contended against those administra-
tions which were supported by the unanimous voice of all re-
formers. Upon this head there had been much declamation.
Declamation was certainly more captivating than facts, but he
would just refer to facts on record, which, for themselves, would
determine whether or not he had acted as was alleged in con-
stant opposition to the reform ,auvernments, and in continued
hostility to the reformers. Was it an attack of hostility upon
the. reform parliament when he said he would support the re-
form governments so long as their principles were couserva-
tive of the institutions of the country. But lie would take a few
domestic questions which had been raised since 18.33, as affording
the beet answer to these attacks. But first he must observe that
the question of reform once settled, .all Englishmen could have
butoue common object in view, whatever might be the principle
and spirit of the reform bill, and he was not aware that any'dis-
tinction could now be drawn between the supporters and the
opponents of that measure, or that the latter were to be held. as
aliens to the country, strangers to her common interests, desi-
rous of perpetuating fur ever their rule and dorninationaa It
would seem from this argument that the House of CoManons
was divided into two parties—the advocates and the Opponents
of the reforming government. A reference to facts would show
that such was not the case, but, on the contrary, than
_he, an
anti-reformer, had been the supporter of the government, and
that it was the reformers themselves who had opposed them.
(I-lear, hear.) In 1833; on the ineetink of the reformed parlia-
ment, an amendment was rnovetl.ou the address—the " blood*
and brutal address." (Hear, hear.) The 'government `resisted
that-amendment; he (Sir R. reel) supported them, and was
one of a very large majority. On the first reading of the dis-
turbauces (frelaud)-hill, the government were opposed though
he supported them. Next came Mr. Attwood's motion on the
subject of the general distress; there he supported the govern-
ment. _So also on Mr. Harvey's motion relative to the publica-
tion of the lists of divisions ' • on Mr. Grote's motion upon the
vote by ballot; and on Mr. Itippon's motion for the exclusion
of the bishops from the House of Lords. The government op-
posed also the repeal of the malt tax, and he had then lent them
his assistance. On the motion for the alteration of the corn
laws, and for a substitution of a property tax in lieu of the du-
ties on malt; on the grant of money relief to the Irish clergy;
on Mr. Tennyson's motion for the repeal of the septennial act ;
On Mr. Harvey's motion upon the pension list; on Sir William
Ingilby's resolution for the reduction of the malt duties
Mr. Buckingham's proposition relative to the impressment;
on Mr. Hume's motion on the corn laws; on Lord Althorp's
proposition with respect to the church rates; on Mr. O'Con-
nell's motion for the repeal of the union—on every one of these
occasions he had found himself id the closest connection
with the government, and lending them his most earnest
and zealous assistance and support. (Hear, hear, hear.)
On questions in which he had opposed the lute government, he
intended still to maintain the Itianalpleir lattleft actallertbat
-opposition ; that ass to say, that he did not meaty to vote fora
compulsory obligation on the universities to admit dissent:era
within their walls, hut would leave that question to be deter-
mined by the universities themselves, (Hear, hear.) He also
intended to maintain the same principles on which he had acted
with reference to the church temporalities' bill; and he would
not consent to the diversion of ecclesiastical property to other
-than ecclesiastical purposes. (Load cheers.) If be differed
from the majority of the house, he regretted it; but upon two
questions noticed in the speech he entertained deliberate opi-
nions, and he was not inclined to sacrifice those opinions even to
facilitate the adoption of his own policy; but on the other ques-
tion noticed in that speech he would act freely on his oscu
principle, which had never led him to oppose salutary reforms.
He was no apostate ; he was not deviating from any principles
which lie had ever professed, when he now avowed that it was
his intention to pursue in office the course which he had already
briefly pointed out. Ile hoped that the house would alioia him
to take a view of the measures indicated by the King's speech
as those hereafter-to be proposed by the government, and Wat-
ford the house the explanation respecting them which had
already been required of him. The first point noticed in the
King's speech was our relations with foreign pi inaaes'and states.
The government declared its earnest desire to cultivate the re-
lations of amity with them. The government stated, that they
entertained confident expectations of being able to 'maintain
the blessings of peace. they said that they already sow a ten-
dency to increased confidence in the British minion's; on the
part of some of the great powers of Europe, and'that •Thit
confidence had been manifested by the reduction of the mili-
tary establishMents of two of them. I Hear, hear, 'bear.) He
alluded to the fact. that Austria and Prussia had both began
to reduce their military force; the one in her Italian, the other
in her Rhenish provinces. It had been argued On the other
side, (mit it were a bad thing that the military governments of
the continent should. have any confidence in the ministry of
England. Now, ministers had contracted no engagements with
those governments which could bind them to depart from their
principles, and from their disinclination to interfere with the
internal affairs of other countries. ( Hear.) But nothing he
must say wss more unfortunate than the course occasionally
pursued in that house of loading with personal obloquy and the
severest vituperationahuse who possess authority in those coun-
tries, whose cordiality it was our interest to cultivate, even
though they were governed byalcspotic institutions. What ins.
consistency was there iu maintaining the principles of a fire
representative government, and vet, disregarding the difference
of ou r institutions, in cultivating friendship with despotic powers?
It would be well if those gentlemen who profess liberal prinei-
/dee would imitate the example of a country with: institutions
more liberal even than our own—he meant the United States,
which saw no. inconsistency and no dereliction of principle in
courting the most frieudly relations with despotic powers. The