Commons Sitting of 1 May 1827

Preamble
The House met pursuant to adjournment, the recent changes in the Administration had excited the liveliest curiosity; and the avenues to the House of Commons were crowded, at an early hour, by persons whose anxiety to see the new

393
Premier appeared to be as great as if they imagined that a change of person must have accompanied his change of place. The House was crowded to excess, and such of the members as could not find accommodation below, resorted to the galleries. To these were added several peers, and reverend prelates, whose curiosity had induced them to be present at this opening act of the New Administration. The bishops of Bath and Wells, and of Lichfield and Coventry, sat in the right-hand gallery, and near them the duke of Norfolk, the earl Fitzwilliam, and lord Seaford; while in the opposite gallery were observed the marquisses of Aylesbury and Sligo; the earls Cowper, Hardwicke, Darnley, Carnarvon, and Roden; and lords Bexley, Farnham and Ravensworth. About five o'clock, Mr. Canning entered, and took the seat which he has usually occupied. Immediately behind him, sat sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Tierney. Mr. Brougham walked up the Ministerial side, and took his seat on the third bench of that side. Near him sat Mr. Calcraft, sir John Newport, lord Stanley, sir Robert Wilson, and Mr. Spring Rice. Mr. Hobhouse retained his seat on the second Opposition bench, and Mr. Hume remained firm in that which he has generally occupied. Mr. Peel and Mr. Goulbourn took up their stations on the second row of seats, between the Treasury-bench and the Bar.

NEW ADMINISTRATION—MR. PEEL'S EXPOSITION.
On the motion, "That a new writ be issued for Ashburton, in the room of the right hon. William Sturges Bourne, who has accepted the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department,"
Mr. Peelrose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—
Sir; as the motion that has just been made is immediately connected with the accession of a right hon. gentleman to an office which I recently held, I trust the house will not think I am preferring an unreasonable request if I entreat them to allow me to offer some explanation as to the grounds on which I thought myself compelled to retire from the service of his Majesty. I know very well how much of personal matter must necessarily be mixed up with an explanation of this kind; but as I have so frequently, under other circumstances, experienced the kind con-
394
sideration and indulgence of the House, I should be much disappointed if I should be deceived in the expectation that they will continue that indulgence, and will allow me to take this opportunity of fully explaining the reasons of my conduct. In that expectation I have abstained from resorting to any other mode of making public the motives which have influenced me in the course I have adopted.
It is now about three weeks since I virtually resigned the seals of the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department. During that interval, my silence may have subjected me to doubtful and even mischievous constructions; but I have waited patiently until this moment, supported by the consciousness of having acted solely upon public grounds, and of having only taken that course which was consistent with my duty, and with what was due to my own character.
The explanation which I wish to offer is due not only to myself individually, but to the character of the class to which I belong—I mean the class of public men; and during the delay that has taken place, I have been supported by the hope, that at this moment, and in this place, an opportunity would be afforded me; and I felt the strongest confidence that the House would allow me to take advantage of this opportunity to make it.
Under the delay which has taken place, I have been supported by the hope, too, that I should be able to vindicate myself from the unfavourable constructions that might have been put upon my conduct in consequence of my silence, and to show that the course which I had pursued was that which the necessity of my situation absolutely required. I say, Sir, "vindicate the course I have pursued;" because I do avow, that I think public men, who are embarked in the public service, have no right, upon light and insufficient grounds, to sever their connexion with the state, and to withdraw from that service into which they have entered.
If, Sir, I had acted in consequence of levity, of disappointed ambition, of personal pique, or opposition towards a rival, I should feel that I was, though not constitutionally, yet morally responsible; and that I should have shown by such conduct I was unworthy of the confidence with which my Sovereign had honoured me. But, Sir, I acted from none of those motives; they did not form the grounds

395
on which I retired from the public service. I acted solely upon principles which I had frequently professed, and which I considered to form part of my public character.
For a space of eighteen years I have pursued one undeviating course of conduct, offering, during the whole of that time, an uncompromising, but a temperate, a fair, and, as I believe, a constitutional resistance to the making of any further concessions to the Roman Catholics. During fourteen out of those eighteen years, I have held office; and during eleven of those fourteen years I have been closely connected in office with that country most interested in the decision of those claims. The opinions which I held during that time I still retain; and I thought, from having always avowed those opinions, but, above all, from having, while in office, taken an active, and I may, perhaps, say, important part against the claims of the Catholics, that I could not remain in office after events had rendered it probable that I should be the single minister of the Crown who was likely to continue opposed to them.
I say, Sir, under these circumstances, I did not feel that it would be consistent With the career I had hitherto pursued, and With the maintenance of my own character as a public man, to acquiesce in arrangements which would benefit myself by enabling me to retain office, which, however, I could not do without acting in a manner calculated materially to promote the successful termination of a question to which, under other circumstances, and in other aspects of political affairs, I had offered the most decided resistance. Under these circumstances, and with respect to the nature of the opposition which I had always offered to the proposed concessions to the Roman Catholics, I felt myself bound to act as I have done.
Sir, the nature of that opposition was such as to allow of no middle course; it was founded upon the belief which I have always sincerely entertained, that the removal of those barriers, which the law opposed to the attainment of political power by the Roman Catholics, was inconsistent with the maintenance of the constitution, and with the welfare and safety of the church.
These being the grounds on which I have always spoken and acted, I say, Sir, that I am now in the judgment of the
396
House and of the country, whether I had not sufficient reason to decline acquiescing in arrangements which were calculated most decidedly to promote that object to which I had always been opposed.
The circumstances to which I have referred I considered seriously; and having done so, I made up my mind to retire from office, if my right hon. friend, whose opinions on this subject were so decidedly opposed to my own, should be placed at the head of the Administration, where he could with more effect than ever support those opinions. If my own had been doubtful, my duty might not have required my resignation; but they were not, and my rigid sense of public duty has determined my course.
If even the Administration could have remained in the same state as before—if it could have continued exactly neutral upon this question—I might have continued in office; but when I saw that exact neutrality could not be expected—when I found that the duke of York was no more, and that the voice of the earl of Liverpool had become silent, I thought I had a right to act, and, indeed, that I ought to act upon the conviction of my own mind, and not subject myself to suspicions by seeming to have been converted to opposite opinions, especially when the period of that apparent conversion would have concurred precisely with that of the change of Administration. I therefore determined to sacrifice office, rather than abandon that course which I had previously pursued for so long a time, and which I had continued while in possession of the office which I lately held.
The next question upon which I wish to say a few words is, whether the appointment of my right hon, friend to be at the head of the Administration, and to occupy that place which was recently filled by the earl of Liverpool, would not almost necessarily bring along with it the final success of the Catholic question?
It is due to my right hon. friend to say, and I give him full credit for it—that I believe him to be actuated by the utmost honesty, sincerity, and zeal, in his efforts for the promotion of the success of that question. I judge him in the same manner as I wish to be judged myself—by the uniform course he has pursued, by the public declarations he has so frequently made, and by the earnestness he has always manifested on this subject. I am

397
perfectly satisfied, I say, with his honesty, sincerity, and zeal; and I declare that it will be as much his duty, as I believe it always was his intention, if he should be placed at the head of the Administration, to promote, by every fair means, if not the immediate, at least the ultimate, success of the Catholic question.
Feeling so, I thought it was my duty to retire. I thought so, not merely because my right hon. friend differed from myself in opinion upon the merits of the Catholic question, but because the change consequent upon his appointment was such, that there could not be any thing less than a complete transfer of all the influence and power which belong (and I think properly belong) to the office of prime minister, from the opponents to the advocates of concessions to the Catholics. That transfer, Sir, was not a transfer of influence and power from one ordinary man to another ordinary man, but from the most powerful opponent of the Catholic claims to their most powerful advocate. Under these circumstances, and with reference to that question, I thought it would be impossible to conduct the government upon those principles on which it had been carried on under the earl of Liverpool; and the consequence was, that I prepared to act upon that resolution, which, from the delay that has taken place upon lord Liverpool's illness, I had had a full opportunity of considering, and which I had maturely deliberated. I had marked throughout, the splendid career which my right hon. friend had pursued with regard to the Catholic question, and each hour of my deliberation confirmed the opinion I had formed, that he would employ the influence of his new office to promote the success of that question which he had always so warmly advocated.
I found that from the very first period when the restrictions imposed by the Regency bill upon his present majesty terminated, up to the month of March last, when the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, brought forward his motion regarding the Catholics, he had pursued the same active and undeviating course in promotion of the Catholic question, which I (though not with the same ability and power) pursued in opposition to it. In the year 1812, after Mr. Grattan had introduced his motion for the immediate consideration of the Roman Catholic claims, which motion was negatived, my
398
right hon. friend was not satisfied with that negative, but brought forward another motion to the same effect as Mr. Grattan's; alleging, as his reason for doing so, that circumstances had been changed, as the restrictions on the Regency had then expired. That motion went to pledge the House to take the state of the Catholics into immediate consideration on the commencement of the next session, and it was adopted by the House.
Now, Sir, I ask, what is there to prevent my right hon. friend, if he thought the course he then pursued was prudent and reasonable, and would be so at this moment, I say, what is to prevent him from pursuing the same course in 1827, which he adopted in 1812? In that year, Mr. Grattan's motion was negatived by a majority of forty; but my right hon. friend, not at all dispirited by that defeat, introduced a motion to the same effect, but in a different shape, pledging the House to a consideration of the question in the following session. One discussion has already taken place this session upon this question, on the motion of the hon. member for Westminster. That motion has been negatived; but the circumstances being pretty nearly the same, I see no ground on which my right hon. friend should feel himself debarred from now pursuing the same course which he adopted on the rejection of Mr. Grattan's motion. If I had continued in office, I could never have thought of proposing to my right hon. friend, that he should pledge himself not to adopt that course, though even if I had been by any chance induced to do so, I am sure, from the course he has always pursued, and from my conviction of the honesty and integrity of his conduct upon this question, he would at once have refused to give any such pledge. I say, therefore, that I was justified in accounting it at least possible, if not probable, that in this very session, a motion might be introduced by my right hon. friend upon the subject of the Catholic claims, and that I might, in this session or the next, be called on, as a member of the government, to acquiesce in a measure introduced by my right hon. friend, which, when it was introduced by the hon. member for Westminster, I had positively rejected. During the whole period from the year 1812 to the year 1827, my right hon. friend has, on every occasion, preserved his consistency upon this point; and in the declaration of

399
his opinions, in his professions, and in his acts, has uniformly given to the claims of the Catholics his most decided, powerful, and effectual support. Not only has he supported them when the question has been brought forward by others, but he has himself originated motions for conceding at least a portion of the claims demanded by the Roman Catholics; motions, however, that, though limited in the extent of their immediate operation, yet involved principles which, if he thought good for a part, he must, by necessary consequence, have considered good for the whole.
In the year 1822, my right hon. friend introduced a motion for the admission of Roman Catholic peers to seats in parliament. That motion I felt it to be my duty to oppose. Now, I will suppose my right hon. friend, invested with all the influence and power of the first situation in the Ministry, again to bring forward that motion at the present time, and I ask whether I could acquiesce in the possession of office, connected as that possession must be with an acquiescence in the admission of that which I have before opposed, and which would involve the decision of every principle that I have formerly supported? Could I afterwards stand up in the face of the country, and allow it to be said, that I had acquiesced in permitting the first Minister of his Majesty to carry into effect, without opposition, that which I had always opposed when it was introduced by any other person?
Sir, I allude thus to what I think my right hon. friend will do, not in the way of complaint—not with the view of remonstrance—that he should employ the influence of the new dignity that he has acquired, in the attainment of the object for which he has so long and so ably laboured; but, because I thought it necessary to vindicate myself, and deemed it essential for the maintenance of my own character, that I should state the whole truth, and explain exactly the nature of those reasons which induced me to adopt the proceeding of retiring from office.
I say, Sir, what security have I that my right hon. friend will not renew the motion which he brought forward in 1822, and which, if successful, would compel me to yield to a measure that I then opposed? His language upon that occasion was so strongly expressive of his opinions of the necessity of that measure, that I
400
cannot avoid quoting it. He said at the conclusion of his speech—"I solemnly declare to the House, that I would not have brought this question forward, had I not felt assured, that the reparation which I ask on behalf of the Catholic peers is, in the name of policy, as expedient as in the name of humanity it is charitable, and in the name of God, just." I say, Sir, if that be a true description of my right hon. friend's opinion—if he now believes, as he then stated, that the claims of the Catholics are in policy expedient, in humanity charitable, and, above all, in the name of God, just—with my confidence in his sincerity, how could I doubt, that, placed in the situation which he now fills, had I remained in office, I should have been called on, and that very shortly, to adopt the alternative of either acquiescing in a motion not now for the first time brought forward, or of opposing myself to the strength of the government? and that acquiescence could not have been yielded by me without involving the whole of those principles which I have hitherto endeavoured to maintain. Sir, that such a motion as that which I have supposed, would involve the whole principle of the Catholic question, I may assert upon the authority of my right hon. friend himself, who said, that he could not conclude his speech on that motion, without admitting that the partial success which he was then attempting to obtain for the Catholics, would, he hoped, ultimately lead to the attainment of the great object they had then in view. Now, Sir, it would not be my part to acquiesce in the attainment of such an object; and if I had remained in office, it would not have been in my power to prevent any, even partial concessions, which might be introduced into parliament by the first minister of the Crown—by that individual who is honoured with the chief confidence of his sovereign; who is mainly responsible for the acts of the administration; and who is first in influence and authority in the Cabinet. I could not, I say, have acquiesced in granting to the Catholics the whole of what they claim, nor in any partial concession of the nature to which I have alluded, attended, as it must have been, with such consequences as my right hon. friend himself at that time predicted. I should therefore have held office only on sufferance; liable to be called on at the notice of a week to retire from the public service; and that, too, perhaps, at a time

401
infinitely more inconvenient for the public than that at which I actually did resign the department that had been intrusted to me. Could I doubt—especially after the example set me by my right hon. friend himself—the propriety of the course which, in my own opinion, circumstances had rendered necessary; always remembering the prominent line of conduct I had adopted upon the Catholic question, and anticipating, as I say I had a right to do, what would be the course that my right hon. friend would pursue, if he should be placed at the head of the administration?
I speak, Sir, of his example; because I think that I, at this day, am placed in circumstances very nearly similar to those in which he was placed in 1812, when he was asked to form part of an administration which was to be neutral on this very question, every member of it being at liberty to speak and to vote as it might seem best to him to do. When that proposition was made to my right hon. friend, he stated that he could not give his consent to act as a single minister upon a question in which all the weight, influence, and authority of the Prime Minister would be against him.
After that example, and after the opinion then expressed by the very minister who now possesses the situation of chief adviser of the Crown, I say, Sir, that I could not have retained office, and then "have complained—if that speech had ever been quoted against me—for submitting to be the Secretary of the State for the Home Department, in an administration in which I should have stood alone opposed to my right hon. friend who was at its head.
The speech to which I have alluded was delivered by my right hon. friend, when Mr. Stuart Wortley, on the 21st of May, 1812, brought forward his motion for the formation of a new and efficient administration. In that administration the Catholic question was proposed to be left open, and both the present lord Wharncliffe and the noble Secretary at War voted in favour of the motion which my right hon. friend afterwards brought forward, and which was carried by a large majority. That majority amounted to 129. I voted on that occasion in the minority; it was a small minority; and though the Protestant cause was not then supported by the same numbers as had supported it when Mr. Grattan's motion
402
was brought forward, yet I at least preserved a consistent course.
On the occasion of Mr. Stuart Wortley's motion, my right hon. friend assumed grounds for declining to form part of the administration, which I consider so nearly similar to those on which I have now retired from the public service, that I think I cannot do better than state them; and I beg therefore to make use of them, not only as applying particularly to my own situation, but as conveying, in better language than my own, the description of the grounds on which I have thought myself called upon to secede:—"I have been asked whether, supposing I had accepted the offer that was made to me, I should not have felt myself at perfect liberty to act as my own opinions should dictate, upon the great question which constitutes the main bar of separation. I reply that, as a minister, I know I should have been at liberty. I do not mean to assert, that if I had joined the present administration to fight against my own principles under the banners of the noble lord, I should not still have had the power of making my solitary speech, and of giving my solitary vote in support of opinions I had previously maintained; I will not even say that there may not be honourable minds who would be satisfied with such a distinction, and it may be my misfortune or my fault that mine is not a mind of that construction. If, when out of office, I have lent to any cause that I deemed just, my influence and my authority, I never can consent to accept office under the condition that I shall instantly divest myself of that influence and authority, which ought still to be my companions, and to leave them on one great and vital question in open and wilful abeyance."
The justice of these sentiments no man can deny, and all must admire; and I believe my right hon. friends, like myself, were fully satisfied of their sincerity. He will now use, and no man can reasonably blame him for using, the influence and authority of the station he now fills, for the purpose of carrying that cause he has so long advocated in vain, and which out of office he declared to be just.
Almost every word then uttered by my right hon. friend upon this point applies exactly to my case. A little further on he observes, "Personal objections to the noble lord I declare I have none."—So I,

403
in my turn, assert, from the bottom of my heart, that I have no personal objections to my right hon. friend. I, on this occasion, like my right hon. friend on that, "am actuated by no feeling of rivalry," and willingly acquiesced in the retention of his services, when he was about to sail for India.
In attending his majesty to Scotland, I closed my lips on the subject; and on the first day after my return to London, I waited on my noble friend at the head of the government, and said, that if his majesty, or my colleagues, deemed it of importance that my right hon. friend should hold the situations he has since filled, difficulties I would make none. That question, therefore, I decided four years ago, and I repeat in his words, that I have been "actuated by no feeling of rivalry; and with this particular question excepted, I could have no earthly hesitation either in acting with or under him." I too cannot allow "the predominance of his opinion to stifle mine;" and on entering the Cabinet under such circumstances, I cannot pretend not to know that his "influence and authority" will be such as to paralyse all my feeble efforts in opposition to the object of his wishes. If I accepted office under him, let it be remembered that I must accept it with full notice of what were his views of the duties of a prime minister, invested with the influence and authority he will enjoy. In the course I have pursued, then, I have only acted in accordance with his example—an example I honour, and an example that ought to be set or followed by every public man.
In the course of the same speech, my right hon. friend made some remarks upon the varieties of opinion entertained in the Cabinet. "But indeed," he added, "it is unfair to impute to the Cabinet any opinion, because collectively it has none; and the retrospective influence upon my mind was, that if I had joined this hortus siccus of dissent, as Mr. Burke once termed it, we should have formed as beautiful a variety as was ever assembled in so small a collection. But, amidst such unprecedented differences, on which side is the influence and authority of government enlisted? That is the main question. This man may hold a blue opinion, another a white, a third a green, a fourth a yellow, and a fifth a red; but, with which of these shades does the sentiment of government
404
most nearly accord? Undoubtedly, this point will be decided by the individual, who, holding the principal office, pre-eminently enjoys the confidence of the occupant of the Throne, and the additional weight he adds to the scale must overbalance the remainder." I hope, also, that I may add, in the words of my right hon. friend, still in perfect accordance with my own sentiments, that "I could not feel that I entered the Cabinet with honour, if I consented to give there a mere barren, solitary vote. I trust, although not very fairly put upon my trial, that my conduct is completely justified in the eyes of the House and of the country."
After the opinions I have avowed, and after the course I have taken for many years, I fairly own that there would have been no inconsiderable difficulties in the way of my accepting office under my right hon. friend; but the peculiarity of my situation depends not merely upon the opinions I have avowed, not merely on the nature of the resistance I have offered to the Catholic claims, not merely on the prominence of the part I have taken on that question, but on the fact, that for the last eleven or twelve years I have held two situations intermixing me with the administration of every Irish question: on me has devolved the whole responsibility, whether as chief Secretary for Ireland, or as Secretary of State for the Home Department. The relation in which I stood to the Prime Minister, from the nature of the office I lately held, I knew presented what I may venture to term an insuperable difficulty. Being now in the ranks of private life, and under no restraint of official reserve, I must fairly state that, for a long period, I only have been considered responsible for the affairs of Ireland. I was the only minister of the Crown, in this House, who took the view I entertained of the Catholic question; and I have been thus placed in a situation, not only of difficulty and embarrassment, but in a situation, in which, let me say, no minister ought to be placed.
In the beginning of the year 1822—(a distinction certainly unsought and unsolicited on my part)—I was appointed Secretary of State for the Home Department, with full notice, I admit, of the difficulties I might thereafter have to combat. If I retained office, it was not from

405
personal motives, or from any desire of the distinction conferred; and, in 1825, after I had been left in minorities on three different questions, immediately connected with Ireland—the Catholic Question, the Elective Franchise, and the Payment of the Catholic Clergy (which I thought something very like the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland)— I waited on my noble friend, then at the head of the government. I told him that, personally, it was painful for me to disconnect myself from those whom I esteemed and respected; but that, having been left in a minority in that branch of the legislature of which I was a member, I anxiously desired to be relieved from my situation. The reply of my noble friend was, that my retirement would determine his own. I finally consented to remain in office; my noble friend declaring, that he deemed it of the highest importance that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should possess opinions as much as possible in accordance with those of the Prime Minister. He represented to me the difficulty he should experience in filling up the situation, and, in short, that my retirement must determine his own. I was thus induced to waive my wish for retirement, and to consent to remain until a new parliament had pronounced an opinion upon the great question which interests and agitates Ireland.
When last I addressed the House on that subject, on the resolutions of the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, I expected to have been again in a minority; and had that expectation been realized, I should then have withdrawn from the service of his majesty. Although I prefer no complaint—for I have always been treated with the most perfect good faith—yet it was no enviable situation at any time to be the single minister in this House, responsible for the administration of the affairs of Ireland—opposed by all my colleagues, and daily seeing those very colleagues, the members of the government, actively concerting measures with my political opponents. They were at perfect liberty to do so; for it was understood that every man might exert himself, either in opposition to, or in promotion of, the Roman Catholic claims. I make no complaint, I prefer no charge on this account; only state the fact, as the reason which made my situation extremely em-
406
barrassing. The support and assistance I received from my noble friend, lord Liverpool, certainly rendered my difficulties less; but if, in the place of him with whom I cordially concurred—with whom I entered into public life—and between whom and myself there never was a shadow of difference of opinion upon any subject;— if, I say, in his place, I find my right hon. friend, with whom I had the misfortune at all times to differ upon that paramount question, it is obvious that it was impossible for me to retain the particular situation I held, of Secretary of State for the Home Department, connected as it was with the office of Prime Minister. Is there an hon. gentleman who hears me, who does not feel, that if it was impossible for me to retain that situation, it was as impossible for me to be guilty of the paltry subterfuge of removing to another. I am perfectly satisfied every gentleman will be convinced that I took the only course remaining to me; and that after the misfortune which befel my noble friend, the earl of Liverpool, I had no alternative but to retire.
The relation between the offices of Secretary for the Home Department and Prime Minister, is more intimate than is, perhaps, generally supposed. Not only does all the Irish business pass through the hands of the Home Secretary, but his connexion with the Prime Minister is this—the Prime Minister has the disposal of all the patronage of government, while the Home Secretary is the minister who is legally and constitutionally responsible, Every place of preferment in the church. every official appointment, is disposed of by the Prime Minister; but the signature of the Secretary of State for the Home Department is indispensable to every instrument. Such being the fact, it becomes a matter of great importance in what manner this office is filled. He who is charged with the domestic government of this country ought not to be an individual materially differing in opinion from the head of the administration. Where this accordance does not exist, the Home Secretary must either retire, or come in painful collision with his coadjutor on individual appointments—a condition most sincerely to be deprecated—leaving him no alternative, but to withdraw himself from office upon some single, isolated point, the true grounds of which the country at large would never be able to under-

407
stand and appreciate rightly. It was my duty, therefore, to consider all these points, beforehand; and if I felt that such collision would arise, it was my duty to prevent it by retirement, without running the risk of embarrassing the public service by adherence to office. These are the public grounds on which—with reference to my position regarding the Catholic question—with a view to my position as Secretary of State for the Home Department, charged with the domestic administration of the affairs of Ireland—I thought it impossible to retain office under a prime minister, differing from me in so marked a degree upon a question of such magnitude. Acting upon these grounds, with great reluctance, but at the same time without a moment's hesitation, I signified to his majesty my determination to resign.
Whether the House deems those grounds sufficient is a matter, give me leave to say, of subordinate consideration to the question whether, having intended to retire, I acted upon that intention in conformity with good faith, and with the respect I owed to the sovereign who had honoured me with his confidence. I would much rather it should be thought that I acted precipitately, and upon insufficient grounds, than that I had been guilty of neglect of duty to my country, and of want of respect to my sovereign. The course I pursued was this: I felt my situation to be one of difficulty, and I wished to influence the opinion and conduct of no man. The first person to whom I communicated my opinion, that I should not be able to concur in the new arrangement, was my right hon. friend himself, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I mentioned my intention to retire to him, and to no other individual, and I knew not the intention of any other man. I acted under a sense of my own situation. The moment the subject was mentioned to me, I thought it did not become me to act with any reserve; and, having made up my mind, not to require that my answer should be postponed until the question had been formally and officially put. This, I am sure, my right hon. friend will do me the justice to admit. The 29th of March was the first time the subject was introduced; and I then said to my right hon. friend, "I will tell you without reserve what are my feelings as to my particular situation: they dictate to me retirement from office,
408
if his majesty should select you to form an administration." I am sure he will recollect that I made this statement, without any breach of that good understanding which has so long subsisted between us. That information I took care to convey to the highest quarter; for, here again, I thought that there should be no reserve. My resolution was not sudden—I acted upon long previous conviction. The step I took was in no respect precipitate; and no one ought to have been taken by surprise by it. Decorum was due to the painful situation of lord Liverpool; and after what delicacy required was at an end, and the matter was formally discussed, I took care that no doubt should remain as to the line of conduct I intended to pursue. I felt a sincere desire, I admit, to remain connected with the late administration; and I stated, that if any arrangement could be made, so as to place the government on the same footing as it was when under the guidance of lord Liverpool, I was satisfied with my situation, and wished for no change nor advancement.
If any arrangement could have been made, so as to secure to the office of prime minister sufficient weight, and to me the same principles, I was perfectly content to remain in office, and was desirous to act, either with or under my right hon. friend, and to see him possessed of all the influence and authority belonging to his high station. I also beg leave to state, that I declared to my right hon. friend, that the Catholic question, and my position with respect to it, in the particular office I held, constituted my only objection to embark under his pilotage. Had I concurred with him upon that great topic, I should have been as ready to take office under him as under lord Liverpool; but, differing from him upon a domestic question of such importance, as minister for the Home Department, from first to last I felt that it was impossible for me to continue in office with him.
Such having been my intention, the House has now heard the manner in which I carried it into effects. I before mentioned, that I declared my intention without communing with any other member of the administration. As I acted without the concert, it is unnecessary for me to add that I did not resort to the advice, of others. But, though I acted without concert with others, let me repel the painful accusation pre-

409
ferred against me, that I look upon my late coadjutors now in a different light to that in which I formerly contemplated them. The esteem, respect, and admiration, which I felt for them as my colleagues in office, I still retain to its fullest extent, and I am far from wishing that my case should be separated from theirs. I am at this moment prepared, if necessary, to vindicate them from the charge of concert and cabal. I am prepared to vindicate them collectively and individually, and to maintain, that the course pursued by each of them was not only perfectly justifiable, but that their impressions and views of duty to the public service, and the conduct produced by those impressions and views, ought to be held up as an example to all who may hereafter be placed in similar circumstances. I declare, then, that the charge against these ministers, or any of them, that they acted by concert and cabal, is not the truth, but directly the reverse of the truth. If there be any appearance of concert in the steps they have taken, it is because, in point of fact, there was no concert at all. Their course was accidentally coincident: and if they had been base enough to cabal against their sovereign, they would probably have been cunning enough to take care to avoid a discovery.
Although, by command of his majesty, I did communicate to one of my colleagues the course I felt bound to pursue, yet I never did inquire, and did not know, what steps that colleague himself would take. I did not know the steps that any of them would take; but I certainly did state, that if the government could be reconstructed, if the rest of my colleagues remained in office, and if I could reserve to myself full discretion on the Catholic question, I thought, without giving any specific pledge, I could give them general support. But I never communicated, for instance, with the lord Chancellor: I never opened my lips until the 9th of April, when the order was given for the formation of a new administration. I never knew the course he meant to pursue; and, upon my honour, I believe that the same may be said of every member of the late government who thought it right to retire. They carried their delicacy and reserve to such an extent, that I do not believe that any one man was acquainted with the course which the other meant to adopt.
As to dictation, also, I declare that the charge is not only untrue, but directly the
410
reverse of the truth. There was no attempt to dictate to his majesty by any one of the late ministers. I can assert it with respect to myself, with respect to the lord Chancellor, and with respect to that illustrious individual whose name is stamped for ever on the records of immortality—that man who is not more remarkable for the brilliancy of his military exploits, than for the simplicity and singleness of his nature—that man whose candour and openness are habitual; and who is distinguished not only for the respect he bears to the kingly office, but, above all, for the devotion and attachment which he feels for the person of the sovereign. When I see it charged, after the services he has rendered his country, that for the base purpose of office he has acted in a way so unworthy, the accusation seems so shameful in its injustice, and so revolting in its ingratitude, that I can scarcely trust myself to speak of it. I say that I am prepared, were it necessary, to vindicate him and others from the foul aspersions cast upon them, connected with their retirement; but I abstain from the undertaking, chiefly because it is not required at my hands, and because elsewhere they may take an opportunity, if they think fit, of meeting and repelling the imputation.
I have now, I believe, nearly completed the task imposed upon me by circumstances; and I feel deeply the obligation conferred on me by the attentive indulgence of the House. It is a matter involving something of public principle, but much more of personal interest: and I cannot conclude a statement of such length, of the grounds on which I am compelled to retire from office, without expressing deep regret at my separation from one with whom I have formerly acted with so much cordiality. That regret is nevertheless mitigated by the reflection, that I did every thing becoming my character to prevent that separation. Personally, too, I may lament that I shall not continue possessed of the opportunities which my office afforded me of making those changes, and introducing those improvements, from the adoption of which only I hoped for distinction and reward.
I cannot but feel concern that the confidence of my sovereign is withdrawn, and the change is the more painful from the uniform kindness and gracious consideration with which he formerly contemplated my labours, and my solicitude for the public

411
welfare. I have the satisfaction of reflecting, that every institution, civil and military, connected with my office, during the last five years, has been subjected to close inspection and strict review; and that I have been able to make such temperate and gradual reforms, as I thought were consistent with the general and permanent good. I have also the gratification of knowing that every law found in the Statute-book when I entered office, which imposed any temporary, or any extraordinary restriction on the liberty of the subject, has either been repealed, or allowed to expire. I may be a Tory—I may be an illiberal—but the fact is undeniable, that when I first entered upon the duties of the Home Department, there were laws in existence which imposed upon the subjects of this realm unusual and extraordinary restrictions: the fact is undeniable, that those laws have been effaced. Tory as I am, I have the further satisfaction of knowing, that there is not a single law connected with my name, which has not had for its object some mitigation of the severity of the criminal law; some prevention of abuse in the exercise of it; or some security for its impartial administration. I may also recollect with pleasure, that during the severest trials to which the manufacturing interests have ever been exposed, during the winter of the last two years, I have preserved internal tranquillity, without applying to the House for measures of extraordinary severity. I hope it will not be considered unbecoming if I allude further to the satisfaction I derive from reflecting upon my exertions in favour of the just prerogative of the Crown.
For all the ancient institutions of my country I have felt a natural prepossession, and an earnest desire that they should preserve that veneration which has promoted their continuance; but those prepossessions have not prevented me from inquiring into cases of alleged abuse, and that desire has urged me in a friendly and temperate spirit, to examine to what degree corruption may have intruded. Where change and restoration were deemed necessary, they have been applied, thus recommending those ancient institutions to the long-enduring attachment and veneration of the country. I again thank the House for the opportunity it has afforded me of giving this explanation, and I shall conclude by assuring it that the confidence of my sovereign, the good-will of his people,
412
and the approbation of parliament, have been at once the motive, and the reward of my exertions.
Mr. Duncombesaid, he was aware that he might incur some imputation by offering himself to the House at that moment, but he was anxious to take the earliest opportunity of stating what he believed to be the decided opinion of the great majority of those whom he represented, and of the country at large; namely, that the secession of the right hon. gentleman was a matter to be most deeply and sincerely regretted. As far as he and many others were concerned, the lengthened explanation of the right hon. gentleman was quite unnecessary. The right hon. gentleman wanted no justification for the honest and manly course he had adopted. He would not attempt to describe that masterly effort, but he would only that it maintained, in all respects, the high character the right hon. gentleman enjoyed from one end of the kingdom to the other, as an eloquent, an honest, and a conscientious minister of the Crown—a valuable and faithful representative of the people—a zealous and active promoter of all that was useful and beneficial—and a watchful and uncompromising guardian of the principles of the British constitution. In the full enjoyment of the confidence and love of the country, the right hon. gentleman had retired from the situation he had so long and so ably filled; but he must take the liberty of expressing his earnest hope, that the retirement would be short, and the return permanent. While out of office, he humbly trusted that the right hon. gentleman would enjoy all the luxury of private life, in the bosom of his affectionate family, and in the circle of his admiring friends. Since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had given his decided and unqualified opposition to the Catholic question, and his support to his majesty's government. The right hon. premier (Mr. Canning) had ever supported that question, and it would be but just in that right hon. gentleman to give it now a more decided support: and that course it was to be expected the right hon. gentleman would pursue, as it was understood he had received the aid of those gentlemen who now sat beside him, without any compromise, on their part, relative to that question.
Sir Francis Burdett rosefrom his seat behind Mr. Canning, amidst loud cheering, and, after stating that he should not

413
take up the time of the House more than five minutes, he proceeded. The speech of the late right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, so candid in its statements, and so honourable to himself, has been heard by me with as much satisfaction as by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. I might even say with more satisfaction, for not a word has been uttered by the right hon. gentleman in the course of his address, that renders it necessary for me to say any thing on the course he is about to take; but I must say, that, having arrived at a great public principle to which I have been most warmly attached; a principle of religious freedom, which I think the true principle of the English constitution; a principle, which I think not only sanctioned by God, not only the right of nature, but a rational as well as a natural right, and a principle which at present predominates throughout the whole civilized world, with very trifling exceptions, and in England alone is not countenanced; but which, I am persuaded, is the only principle that is calculated to give it happiness. Upon that ground, the same reasons which make the right hon. gentleman feel it incumbent on him, with his views, to withdraw his support from his majesty's government, make me feel it equally incumbent on me to give it every support in my power. I support the administration as at present formed, because it affords the best opportunity that I have ever yet met with of promoting that great cause for which I have been, ever since the commencement of my public life, most eagerly struggling—the cause of civil and religious freedom—which has been, with the progress of knowledge and civilization, spreading over almost all nations having any pretensions to the name of civilized; the British empire, strange to tell, alone excepted. The period has at length arrived when an administration, in promoting the best interests of mankind, has not even the trouble to direct public opinion—it has only to follow it; and trusting that here, at length, we have an administration that will follow the march of the age, I have resolved to give it my humble support, for the same reasons of public principle which have induced the right hon. gentleman to abandon it. Upon the same grounds of a great public principle which have led the right hon. gentleman to withdraw from office, do I give my support to the administration, as at present con-
414
stituted; not entirely, perhaps, upon the foundations of a complete concurrence upon abstract principles, but as the best opportunity that I ever enjoyed in my life of doing something practically to promote the most important—beyond all measure the most important—interests of the nation. I do not propose at present to debate the Catholic question; nor do I mean to allude to that question particularly, as connected with the formation of the present cabinet; but, I must observe, the opinion of the public will be, that there are now stronger hopes of a conclusion to the differences that have created so much division, which ought never to be suffered to exist in any civilized country. A dawn of hope now opens for those who have struggled to promote harmony, and peace, and knowledge, and, consequently, religious and moral improvement in that benighted country, Ireland. This opinion will, in the mean time, do much towards tranquillizing it. I give the right hon. gentleman credit for the integrity of his motives; and I am sorry that he should have found himself compelled, by his principles, to abandon his office. By his retaining that office, he would, no doubt, have more influence in promoting those minor ameliorations to which his attention had been so usefully directed. But, I hope, that although he has quitted office, he does not mean on that account to discontinue his exertions for carrying into effect the improvements which he contemplated when in office. That course of conduct the right hon. gentleman has still in his power to pursue, and his labours in that respect will still be most useful to the country. Doing this justice to the right hon. gentleman; hearing also, with some little surprise, that the principle I allude to has been the sole principle on which the divisions in his majesty's government had taken place; hearing that his colleagues, one and all, have acted on the same honourable principle as himself, and willing to give him every credit for his statement, and therefore admitting that neither he nor they are liable to reproach (and I am sure I am the last person to seek for an opportunity of casting unjustifiable reproach), I must say, that whatever the principle on which they acted may be, I think their retirement a most fortunate event for the country; for, by that event, a great obstacle, as I conceive, has been removed to the adoption of measures,

415
particularly with respect to Ireland, which the circumstances of the country render absolutely necessary—things being in a state in which it was impossible that they should long continue. The truth is, that enlightened principles are on their march. They cannot be arrested, but they may, by wisdom, be directed, and not only prevented from producing mischief, but turned to a good public account. These are the grounds on which I take my stand on the present occasion. I think that those who form the government, giving up the support they formerly derived, on such grounds, have a claim on us, who have been advocating principles of the same kind, to have that support made up to them, that they may have an opportunity of carrying into beneficial effect the principles to which they are attached. It is on these grounds that I am anxious to give every support to the present arrangement. I will say, as a practical man, that I do not think it common sense to omit the opportunity of advancing a particular object, because there are principles of an abstract nature on which you are at issue; or that because certain measures cannot be acted upon to their full extent, you will refuse all support to every practical adoption of those measures. I will say, moreover, that it appears to me, that this is not only the best hope the country has, but the only hope the country has, for a change of policy which the enlightened mind of the country, and the state of the times equally demand. The state of the country requires all the ability, and all the concurrence of principle as well as of ability, that can be collected; for, in whatever light you view it, whether you look at its domestic relations, particularly to the state of Ireland, or to its foreign or colonial situation, to its policy within or without, it seems to me to be in a situation to demand all the ability, and all the enlightened public principle that can be pressed into its service. The surest way to effect that desirable object is, by the formation of an administration, not splitting on every great question of state policy, but one united on all the grand principles of good government, and in their desire and determination to remove abuses that have too long existed. In taking this decisive step I have followed the course dictated by the best exertion of my judgment, and come to a resolution to support the king in the exercise of a constitutional
416
prerogative—the power of selecting for his prime minister that person whom he considers the most fit and competent to execute the great measures of public utility which an administration ought to have in view. Who is there that would divest the king of that high prerogative—almost the only act of practical authority which the constitution requires his majesty to exercise in person—the appointment of the principal servant in the royal councils. But the right hon. gentleman seeing, in that exercise of his majesty's prerogative, indications of an intended course of policy to which his own sentiments are adverse, tells us that he has a right to retire, for that reason, from any share in the new government. Doubtless, the right hon. gentleman has a right to do so; and, on the same principle, I and my friends, who have made that question a sine qua non, are justified in giving our support to the present administration now, when that question is supported by the public voice, as we did five years ago, when it was overpowered by the clamours of bigotry—influenced, as well as the right hon. gentleman, neither by feelings of personal friendship nor enmity; and, like him, too, looking neither to the right nor to the left, I again assert, that I rejoice to see the right hon. gentleman separated from the administration, considering him, as I do, an insuperable obstacle to the adoption of a. great public measure, just in itself, and vitally important to the peace and prosperity of the united empire.
Sir Thomas Lethbridgesaid, he was most anxious at the present moment to declare his opinions respecting the alteration which had recently taken place in his majesty's councils, more especially after the speech of the hon. baronet who had just sat down. Of all the changes which had recently taken place, he thought the change indicated by the hon. baronet's speech the most extraordinary. The hon. baronet, however, while he dwelt on his loyalty to the throne, had adverted to a great leading point or principle, upon which the present cabinet had been formed—a principle which had led to the secession of the late ministers, including the right hon. gentleman who had recently addressed the House. For many reasons he regretted the secession of the right hon. gentleman; and yet, in some respects, he was glad of it, as it would lead the country to a real and just view of the great and leading

417
public principle upon which the present administration was made up. The change had at least produced this good effect—that it showed the public principle on which the administration was resolved to act; and it would be for the people of this country to decide whether they would support such an administration. There were now two clear distinctions formed in point of principle; and the nation must be decisively divided into those who supported and those who opposed the concessions claimed by the Catholics. These were the views which must be taken by those who supported, and by those who opposed the new administration; and so far he rejoiced in the change which had taken place. The cabinet was now at least united in principle, as he apprehended all cabinets ought to be; and it was from that feeling that he had, on a late occasion, given notice of a motion for an address to his majesty, requesting him to form an administration united in principle. He maintained, that it was proper that a cabinet should exist entertaining a decided opinion either one way or the other, and such an administration had now been formed, and was supported by the hon. baronet, because he conceived that the ministers were prepared to act upon the principle which he stated to be the sine qua non point in the formation of a ministry—meaning a full concession of all the claims made by the Catholics. The present first lord of the Treasury might, therefore, now be expected to come down to the House, and broadly and openly bring forward the proposition for the concession of these claims as a government measure. It was well known what the opinions of those were on this question, who, if they did not actually come at once into office, had at least been very near coming in, and probably would soon form a part of the administration. The question must, therefore, now come before the House in a decided form; more particularly as the hon. baronet had said, that the being prepared to make the fullest concessions to the Catholics was a sine qua non qualification for a member of the cabinet [cries of no, no!] He certainly understood the hon. baronet to say so; and that he stated that to be his reason for supporting the present cabinet. The whole course of his argument went to that point. He certainly would oppose any further concessions to the Catholics; but he wished the question
418
to be brought forward in a plain and decided shape, instead of seeing it hanging on as a matter of doubt, as it had done for the last twenty years. Those who had shown a disposition to support the present cabinet, were bound in honour and conscience to see that the Catholic question should be plainly and unequivocally brought forward as a government measure; and he now called on the first lord of the Treasury to speak out plainly on the subject this very evening; and he hoped that the right hon. gentleman, instead of continuing to temporize and to pare down principle, would bring the system to a final issue. This was but fair; and he would continually call upon the right hon. gentleman to bring the matter to a final issue.
Sir F. Burdettin explanation, said, he had not stated that the concession of the Catholic question was a sine qua non; but had only expressed his hope, that the present cabinet would adopt measures to insure the tranquillity of Ireland, and follow a course corresponding to the progress of the public mind in England; and it was in that hope that he supported the present administration.
Mr. G. Dawsonsaid, he was quite convinced that in the whole of this business the gentlemen who had formerly sat on the opposition benches, and who had now joined the ministry, had only done so from a wish to occupy the ministerial station and authority [a laugh]. He himself did not regret that he had quitted the service of the Crown, since he had done so for the reasons which had been so ably and eloquently stated by his right hon. friend, the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, and who had most honourably preferred the support of his principles to the retaining of the high situation which he had held. The hon. baronet had expressed his hope that the Catholic question would be carried by means of the present cabinet; and it was his duty, entertaining the opinions which he professed, and of those who along with him held those opinions, to insist that the cabinet should propose the granting of the Catholic claims as a government measure; otherwise the hon. baronet and his friends would be parties to the basest coalition that ever was formed [hear! and a laugh]. He repeated, that they would be parties to one of the basest, one of the most unnatural, coalitions that this country had ever wit-

419
nessed; and would exhibit the grossest abandonment of principle [another laugh]. He was not to be put down by laughing and sneering, and called upon the Speaker to enforce order in the House. He insisted that unless the hon. baronet and his friends would cause the Catholic question to be brought forward as a government measure, there never was such a base coalition formed for party purposes. He asked, whether the concession of the Catholic claims was to be brought forward? since, if it was not, there never was such a compromise of principle. Almost the whole of the public press had, by a kind of fatality, supported the first lord of the Treasury in the whole of this business. The fact was, that the entire prop was corrupted—corrupted to the very core—corruption had stifled the public voice, and prevented the expression of the public opinion; but though the press was silent, the voice of individuals was not. He, as an individual, would raise his voice to state facts which had come to his knowledge, and which, if true, would place the right hon. gentleman at the head of the Treasury in an embarrassing situation—circumstances on which the right hon. gentleman was bound to give the House a clear explanation. It had been stated by the highest authority in the country, that the new cabinet would not change the course of policy pursued by the late one, and that the majority of that cabinet would be essentially Protestant, and adverse to the Catholic question. But now it appeared that was not the case. What, then, would the country think of such conduct? What would the Catholics of Ireland think, but that emancipation would be instantly conceded, when they saw nine members of the cabinet out of twelve in favour of the measure? If this should be the feeling of the Catholics of Ireland, what would be the feeling of the Protestants of Ireland, who had learned that the majority of the cabinet was to be Protestant—when they were informed, that the only advocate for Protestant principles in the cabinet would be lord Bexley, who had given up place, and taken it back again, and in whom he as a Protestant, could have no trust? Would the Protestants of Ireland depend on lord Lyndhurst; who, after having the other day made a speech from the pamphlet of Dr. Philpott, afterwards gave his aid to a cabinet in which the principles of that speech must be outvoted? No, the Pro-
420
testants in Ireland had no confidence in either of them, and, least of all, would they enlist themselves under the banners of lord Lyndhurst. What would the Protestants of England think, when they heard it stated on authority, that the archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishop of London, had informed the assembled bishops at Lambeth, that they understood from the king, that his opinions on the Catholic question were unchanged—stronger, in fact, than his father's opinions were when, in 1806, he gave that memorable answer to Mr. Fox. If this was not true, it could be contradicted by the right hon. gentleman. His majesty said to the archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishop of London, that before he took the coronation oath—[here there was a cry of order!]
The Speakersaid that for many reasons it was extremely difficult for him to know whether he steered the proper course on this occasion; but it was necessary he should call the attention of the hon. member to the fundamental principle of all their debates, that, neither directly nor indirectly, the name of the Crown should be used to sway the discussions of the House, or influence its decisions.
Mr. G. Dawsonresumed. When he was interrupted, he was making a statement relative to one of the greatest and most important questions that could engage the attention of parliament, and which, indeed, involved the nature and essence of the constitution itself. He was justified, he contended, in giving his opinion as to the formation of the new government. The House had been called upon by an hon. baronet to support the new government, because that government entertained a certain opinion upon that great question. He therefore said, that if the hon. baronet acted upon this conviction, and was correct in doing so, his majesty and his new ministers were at variance in their opinions upon that great question; and the House had a right to demand some explanation from the right hon. gentleman at the head of the Treasury, before they were required to give their support to any set of men calling themselves his majesty's ministers. He was at a loss to know how he could in a more orderly manner have stated the fact, that the archbishop of Canterbury had declared, that the coronation oath stood in the way of any concession to the Catholics, on the part of a certain distinguished per-

421
sonage. Now, if that was the case, and the ministers knew that such was the opinion of their loyal master [order! chair, chair!]—he begged pardon if he was out of order, but he did not see that he was. He said again, that if to this day, the basis on which every government had been formed was laid with reference to the decided objection known to exist in a certain high quarter to the Catholic claims—and if it was true, as was commonly reported, that the archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishop of London had told the assembled prelates at Lambeth, that that objection still continued in unabated force, the right hon. gentleman was called upon to give some explanation to the House, not only respecting the stipulation on which he had accepted office, but as to his own intentions with regard to that great question, before the House could feel in a condition to support him. As to himself, it was a matter of little consequence whether he supported the government or not [a laugh]. The junction of the whigs, if it had any effect on him, would only tend to make him more decisive in his opposition. But, he maintained, that the House ought not to be satisfied with such explanations as might arise incidentally in the debates that were likely to take place. They should ask, at once, fairly and openly, what was to be the public expectation with respect to this measure? If the Roman Catholics of Ireland should be deluded by the prospect held out to them by those now in power, and any criminal excesses should follow, he should hold the present government and the ministers of the Crown, and them alone, responsible, for every calamity that might overtake that country, and be thereby entailed upon this. He would once more repeat, before he sat down, that an explanation was necessary, and he trusted it would be ample and explicit.
Mr. Broughamthen spoke to the following effect:—I rise under the pressure of no inconsiderable, no ordinary anxiety, to address myself to the House; and, permit me to add, in the present, no ordinary, state of the government, to the country also, on the subject of this conversation. I should, perhaps, have done so after my hon. friend, the member for Westminster, had spoken, in order to prevent some sentiments which he uttered from being misunderstood; but having waited to hear, as I did with some surprise, the speech of
422
the hon. baronet, the member for Somersetshire, and still more that of the late under Secretary of State for the home department, which I heard with increased astonishment, I can no longer defer the performance not only of the duty I owe to myself as an humble individual in this House, but of the duty which I owe to those friends with whom it has been, and still continues to be, my pride and pleasure to act, since my first entrance into parliament. The hon. gentleman who last addressed the House made an appeal personal to myself in an especial degree. He was considering the state of the new administration, as he is pleased to term it, and the principles that have presided in the reconstruction of the ministry; and he discovered, it seems, especially after the speech of my hon. friend, the member for Westminster, that there can have been no earthly motive for the change of position which we have assumed, except the desire we must have to participate—I do not know whether he said in the emoluments of office; but if he did not say it, more sordid natures would understand him to mean it—at all events, in the patronage and power of the right hon. gentleman below me, now at the head of the Treasury. To whomsoever that observation may be intended to apply, be it a sober theory of the hon. gentleman's, founded on a reason, according to his mode of reasoning; or a sarcasm, the first birth of wit in an ex-officer of the Crown, less accustomed heretofore to indulge in sneers than in silent votes [order, order!]—there are, it appears, some gentlemen whose ideas of justice would be well satisfied to hear the charge, but who refuse to listen to the defence [cheers]. Whatever may be my difference or agreement with the government of the right hon. gentleman, of which I am disposed to augur favourably, I trust at any rate, that his government will not be conducted in this House on principles that would sanction so grievous a departure from the justice due to every individual [cheers]. I say, then, that to whatever member or part of the House the observation of the hon. gentleman may apply—to me, in my situation, application it can have none. I never dreamed of taking office under the present arrangement. I am much more certainly and inevitably out of office, and out of office am more likely to continue, than even the hon. gentleman himself [a

423
laugh]. But because I support this government, though I go no further, I am to be charged with having acceded to an unnatural coalition. I am to be told, there has been a monstrous and unnatural alliance formed between the right hon. gentleman below me, and those friends with whom I have had, and still have, the happiness and honour of acting. An unnatural alliance—because there are points of difference which should have eternally forbade the junction! an unnatural alliance—because we have differed, and particularly of late years, on all the most material questions of internal and foreign policy! an unnatural alliance—because, since the death of lord Londonderry, we have been striving to rivet fast to the chariot wheel of the Holy Alliance the triumphant fortunes of Great Britain!—[hear]—an unnatural coalition, because we have been amongst those who have been the staunchest friends to the liberal system of commercial policy adopted by that ministry: because, amongst others, I myself have been the constant supporter of those free doctrines in trade, which were afterwards received, sanctioned, and carried into practice, by men more enlightened and of far more political weight than myself! An unnatural coalition, undoubtedly, because we have constantly differed from the right hon. gentleman, as to the internal policy of the empire; because we, forsooth, have ever disputed with him, as to that great corner stone, the mode fitting to be adopted for the government of the sister kingdom of Ireland [cheers]. Look over all the great political questions that divide some men, and approximate others at the present day. Travel with your eyes over the affairs of Europe, or across the Atlantic, and see the dawn of liberty in South America, where millions are blessing the grateful light, while the hearts of millions in this country are beating in unison with theirs, yet rejoicing in their new-born freedom [cheers]. Whether we look, I say, to the east or the west, to America or to Europe, to our domestic policy, or questions of trade, or the improvement of our mercantile system, or to the agricultural interests of the country—the very last subject on which I gave the feeble aid of my voice to government, though the late Under Secretary was then silently voting on the same side [a laugh]—surveying all those great questions which divide men in their opi-
424
nions, and animate conflicting parties and rival statesmen, I can conscientiously declare, that passing them all in review, I cannot discover one single tenet or sentiment, nay, one solitary feeling which, practically speaking, has influenced the councils of his majesty's government, during the last three or four years, and which did not find in my opinion, a firm support, and in my feelings a faithful echo [cheers]. There was, indeed, one point, in those days, in which I differed from the right hon. gentleman. As to one question, one practical view of the state of affairs, I could not coincide with him. When I saw a cabinet formed of Statesmen appearing outwardly to act together, but whose opinions on the greatest question of all not merely discorded, but differed widely as the poles asunder; when I saw the opinions of one Secretary of State, as evidenced by his vote and his speeches, opposed by another Secretary of State;—when I saw the government in such a state as the late Secretary for the Home Department has manfully, and honourably to himself, and satisfactorily to this House and to the country, described—a state in which he found himself chiefly, if not singly opposed to his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) so painfully situated, that he had almost resolved to retire a year or two ago from his majesty's service;—when the government was in this state, I could not give it a more regular, constant, and therefore, valuable support. I was prevented from doing so,—barred out from the very attempt—because I could not lend my assistance to a government so constituted as to command respect from no thinking man; and in which, from its very construction, it was utterly impossible that the interests of the public service could be consulted [cheers]. This impediment has been removed by the retirement from office of those who were the principal elements of this opposition in the king's councils. I wish to speak with unfeigned respect of the noble lords and right hon. gentlemen who have lately retired from the public service. With regard to the right hon. gentleman who has addressed the House this evening, I am particularly anxious to express myself in those terms of high personal respect which I feel towards him. I shall not now be accused of paving my court to that individual, if I speak my full opinion of his merits, It may riot be forgotten by

425
the House—not because any thing done by so inconsiderable a person as myself is likely to dwell in their memory, but as connected with passages in the right hon. gentleman's life worthy to be recollected—that if there was one individual in this House, to whom on this side (I at that time sitting on the other side), it was my misfortune, certainly not his fault, to be opposed in a more personal manner than another, it was that right hon. gentleman. But candour, and truth, and justice, compel me to say, that the manner in which he conducted himself was not only at all times above all censure, but such as places him above the possibility of suspicion, even by the most ingenious malice of his worst enemy, if he had one [cheers]. Feeling the good accomplished by the moderate, rational, and wholesome steps taken by the right hon. gentleman, for the amendment of the Criminal laws—those great reforms, projected by that excellent man, sir S. Romilly, who was not spared to witness the triumph of his principles, and more recently supported with surpassing eloquence and ability, by an hon. friend (sir J. Mackintosh), whom indisposition now keeps from his place in parliament I regard it as none of the least evils resulting from the unsettled state of the Catholic question, that that circumstance alone deprives the government and the country of that right hon. gentleman's services [hear, hear!].—I would add one word respecting this great question. Base conduct has been imputed to his majesty's government, and those who have joined it, in plain, undisguised, and therefore to me, I confess, more palatable, because more intelligible, language, by the right hon. gentleman who spoke last. [Some friend whispered to Mr. Brougham]. Well: the hon. gentleman, then be it. Nobody will mistake me. My friends are afraid I that should seem to confound the late right hon. Secretary of State with the hon. Under Secretary. There is no danger of confusion in this case [a laugh]. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) used no such terms as those of "base conduct" and "unnatural coalition;" and if I read his character aright, he is incapable of feeling the sentiments which would give rise to that plain and honest language. But, Sir, I say there is no baseness in this coalition, if there be no fraud practised on the parties to this alliance. I, for one, do not look to see the Catholic question made
426
a cabinet measure. I have no such expectation. I look to its being served and advanced by the mode in which the cabinet has been remodelled [cheers]. I look to the ultimate good to be obtained for Ireland, if it be pursued prudently, discreetly, practically, with a just estimate of all the prodigious difficulties which yet stand in the way, and which seem even to accumulate round our steps as we approach the desirable goal. The very statements we have heard this evening from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Dawson)—for I understood enough of his allegory to comprehend what he alluded to, and which may, I fear, be all perfectly correct—shew that these difficulties are increasing rather than diminishing. Heartily and zealously desiring the welfare of Ireland, and the accomplishment of the wishes of all Catholic Ireland, and of a great part of Protestant Ireland too—for, permit me to say, that all the Irish Protestants are not on one side, and all the Irish Catholics on the other—I am anxious, in the first place, for the removal of all causes of internal disagreement and jealousy. It is notorious, that in the last division, which postponed the hopes of the Irish Catholics for another year, a vast majority of the Irish members, who are all by law necessarily Protestants, voted for emancipation. But, let me at the same time give forth a warning to the Catholics themselves, an admonition to their advocates in this House, and this salutary advice to their friends generally: Let them not at this critical moment [cheers from the Opposition benches, echoed still louder from the Ministerial side]—let them not, I repeat, at this critical moment, to please their bitter enemies, play the game of the party of the quadrant of this House, who, already in expectation of success of their shallow device, suffer it too plainly to appear, by those signs and gestures and articulate sounds, by which they make themselves understood, though they seldom deal in articulate language [cheers]. Let them not, I conjure them, gratify the member for Somersetshire (sir Thomas Lethbridge), whose position is at this moment, I should say, but for the abundance of my respect for him, absolutely grotesque. Long may he occupy it! As the hon. member for Yorkshire wished the late right hon. Secretary of State, I wish the hon. baronet constant health and an uninterrupted enjoyment of that bench which he now so peculiarly

427
adorns [a laugh]. But I counsel him to beware of speaking. It is a dangerous employment of the property of the mind. Let him use what he has warily and wisely. Let him vote as much as he pleases; but let him be cautious how he commits himself to the more arduous duty of talking. His position this evening struck me as pre-eminently ludicrous, and almost induced me to call it by the appellation that properly belongs to it. He was placed, it evidently appeared between two equal and opposite sets of motives, each of similar powers, attracted as it were, like a certain animal, by two bundles of hay [a laugh]; so the honourable baronet hardly knew whether to support the sovereign who was compelled, by the retirement of his ministers, to exercise his prerogative, and call others to their places, or those who had endeavoured to embarrass the government by their sudden haste. I trust he will take the constitutional course on the present occasion; and he may be assured, when I tell him, that there is not in any question, in or out of the cabinet, the shadow of an intention, all at once to alter the policy that has been pursued for many years with regard to the Catholic claims, and now, for the first time, to make it a cabinet question. But, will nothing but the entire destruction of the new administration satisfy the hon. baronet? I speak as a bystander [a laugh]. If he is not satisfied with my relative, lord Bexley, is the new lord chancellor nothing? Is he no security? Did he not hear the speech of that noble and learned lord, on the last debate in this House, when I was sitting a humble member of that body of which the hon. baronet is now the distinguished leader? [cheers and laughter.] There are, at least, those two members of the cabinet opposed to the Catholics; to say nothing of a third. But with respect to that great question, I will say, that whoever advises any man to stir it by any means out of this House, or to bring it forward again this session, in which the sense of the House has already been declared against it, that man, I say, will not further the interests of Ireland or of the Catholics. Nor will he do his duty with regard to the tranquillity of Ireland, or the peace of her government; but he will shew himself the worst enemy of the momentous interests he pretends to uphold, and make himself a blind tool in the hands of the member for Somersetshire [cheers
428
and laughter]. That the progress of that question may be accelerated, is my most anxious desire; and to it I have long directed my attention and devoted my talents. As it is the custom to talk of sacrifices, I may mention mine. I have quitted a situation in this House which, considering the influence of opinion and feeling, was in the highest degree grateful to me; and in which I was surrounded and (if it may be permitted me to say so) supported, by one of the largest, the most important, the most honourable, and, now I may say it, for I was privy to all their councils, and my motives cannot be suspected, the most disinterested Opposition, that ever sat within the walls of this House [cheers]; men who supported what they deemed right, though it kept them out of power; and confirmed their adversaries in office, and who persevered in that course year after year, without a possible hope of benefit ever accruing to themselves [cheers]. I have quitted that honourable and eminent situation, enough to gratify the ambition of the proudest of men, on an express stipulation, which utterly excludes the possibility of my taking office [cheers]. I have done so deliberately and advisedly. I shall be sufficiently gratified in watching the progress of those opinions to which I am attached, both as to our foreign and domestic policy; including with the rest, the Irish question, but not giving it a prominence which would render it exclusive, and impede its success by making it unpopular in this country, by arousing the religious jealousy of the people. When I say that I have not become a party to any arrangements with regard to office, I wish it to be understood, however, that the union which has taken place between parties lately divided will have my cordial and uniform support. My taking office would have stood in the way of those arrangements; and I therefore at once voluntarily, and without waiting for a suggestion from any one, resigned all my claims to office. It is unpleasant to be forced to dwell on matters that are wholly personal to one's self; but, as the right hon. gentleman most truly stated this night, the character of a public man belongs to his country; and to this country he ought not to be slow in furnishing the means of properly estimating his motives.
Mr. Canningrose, under evident emotion, and spoke nearly as follows:—
sir, it would be uncourteous to the

429
House, and uncourteous to my right hon. friend, were I to allow this opportunity to pass without expressing, in as few words as possible, the sentiments which his speech has excited—I should rather say confirmed—in my mind; and although, perhaps, I might not have risen for the express purpose of doing so, yet, as there have been calls on me from different parts of the House, and as I am quite prepared, in the discharge of my duty, to answer those questions, I hope satisfactorily, I certainly shall not fail to express the pleasure I has received from hearing them.
To begin with the more agreeable part of my task, the speech of my right hon. friend, I shall confirm the greater part of that speech. I can bear testimony that, throughout the whole of the discussions that have taken place since parliament was adjourned, I have kept up with my right hon. friend the most constant and confidential intercourse; and throughout have I found in him the same candour and sincerity, and the expression of the same just feelings, and a uniform exhibition of the same high principle, to which he has laid claim in the address which he has this night delivered. I assure the House that they much mistake the position in which I have the honour to stand, who believe that position to be one of gratified ambition, or as conveying the feeling of unallayed satisfaction.—From the beginning of these discussions, I foresaw—both of us foresaw—that they must terminate in a separation; which I hope to God may be only for a time! Had the question been merely between my right hon. friend and myself, and had it been to be decided by his retirement or by mine, I do most solemnly declare it should have been decided by the latter alternative [hear, hear!] Sir, my right hon. friend had the courtesy to state to me yesterday, his intention of making some explanation, or statement, to the House on the present occasion. I had therefore, the opportunity—for which I thank him—of doing that without which I should never have been able to address the House with satisfaction to myself—of asking his Majesty's gracious permission to state such passages in the late discussions, as might be necessary to explain my conduct. I know not whether the House will be surprised to hear—my right hon. friend will not, for I have already stated it to him—that when I was
430
first called upon by his Majesty for advice, in the critical situation in which the government was placed—aware, for why should I disguise the fact?—of his Majesty's individual opinions, I counselled him to make the government conformable to those opinions. That counsel necessarily involved my own retirement, and that retirement would have been made with a much more cheerful heart, and a more confident assurance, from the position in which it placed me, than I have had at any subsequent stage of these transactions. Sir, in offering my advice to his Majesty to constitute a government opposed to my opinions, I begged leave to withdraw myself, as I could not form a part of such a government. Now, Sir, why did I do this? I, who, as the House may do me the honour to remember, have always defended, and still continue to defend, the existence of an Administration divided in opinion upon the Catholic question. I will tell the House my reason for so doing, in order to put an extinguisher upon mis-construction as to my real motives. Not many months ago, from quarters which I will not name, strenuous advice was addressed to his Majesty, to place his government on a footing of unanimity, with respect to the Catholic question; and that unanimity to be one of uniform opposition to that question. Lord Liverpool, to whom this advice was communicated, at the same time that it was addressed to his Majesty in a letter to his Majesty, stated first, that having been one of the original authors of a government divided in opinion on that question, he, for one, never could consent to become a member of a government modelled upon the principle of exclusion. Lord Liverpool also added, that as he was called upon to give his advice to his Majesty, he must say, that in his opinion, it would be extremely difficult to accomplish the formation of such a government. I say, therefore, Sir, that when I found myself placed under the necessity, as a counsellor of the Crown, of advising his Majesty to attempt the formation of such a government, it was not for me to estimate the difficulties of the task—it was not for me to take the place of those counsellors who counselled the necessity of such a course, and point out how difficulties might be surmounted or objections overcome. It was not for me, I say, to point out how it might be done; but I could

431
not disguise it from myself, as I had felt it my duty not to disguise it from my Sovereign, that although the formation of such a ministry was a work of very great difficulty, it was not a task of absolute impracticability [hear, hear!]. Now, for what reason that advice was not acted upon; by whose advice or by what counsel it was determined to abandon that course, I do not know—and more than I know I will not state—but from the time when I first saw the king, and gave the advice I have described, down to the period when his Majesty came to town, I had no knowledge, of any certainty, that the advice I gave had not been adopted. So far, therefore, from seeking or soliciting, as the hon. gentleman charges me, the post which I have now the honour to hold, I withdrew myself altogether from any participation in the arrangements, in order that the experiment which was said to be so loudly called for by the country might be fairly tried—that experiment which was alluded to, and sought to be enforced, by the abortive motion of the hon. member for Somersetshire (sir T. Lethbridge). I mean not, however, to be guilty of any incivility; but I repeat, that I withdrew, in order to have that experiment fully and fairly tried; and I declare to God that there was nothing at that moment nearer to my heart, than that my stepping out of the way might remove every obstacle to that trial [hear, hear!]. But, Sir, when it was distinctly stated to me, that such an administration could not be formed, and when I received his Majesty's commands to model a government on the same principle as that of lord Liverpool, of which I had been a member, nothing, I conceived, could possibly remain but to construct a government of the divided character to which I have alluded, upon the subject of Catholic emancipation, with the necessary consequence, that the question of the removal of Catholic disabilities should not be made a measure of the cabinet. But then, with the proposal to form a government upon that principle—upon the very principle of my predecessor—came a new question—a question which at once involved the point of, whether I was to remain in the situation to which I had been raised, disgraced in my own opinion, and discredited in the eye of the country, or whether I was to receive from the hands of my sovereign, undiminished and unincumbered, that inheritance
432
which a dreadful misfortune—for dreadful I may indeed call it—had cast upon his disposal. Now, what was it I proposed? What was it I had in command to do in the reconstruction of the government? To form a ministry upon the principle of lord Liverpool's administration. That the government should even consist of the very same individuals, I am sure I had no objection. But, what was proposed to me? That I, having his Majesty's commands to form a government upon the very same principles as those of my lamented predecessor, should place at the head of that government another person, holding upon the subject of the Roman Catholic claims lord Liverpool's opinions [hear, hear]? Now, what was it I was desired to sanction by the adoption of that course? What principle is it I was called upon to admit? Why, I was desired plainly to say, that I, holding the opinions I have repeatedly avowed myself to hold upon the Catholic question, am thereby disqualified from being placed at the head of the government [cheers]. I was called upon to acknowledge, in the face of the country, that I, forming an administration upon the principles of lord Liverpool—that is, of divided opinions on the Catholic claims, was—from the very holding of a different and divided opinion—disqualified from taking the highest office in that government [cheers]. I will retire altogether and for ever from public life; I will betake myself to the furthest boundary of the earth, and into perpetual banishment; I will resign any and every hope of office—for I care nothing for office—but I will not disgrace myself, by consenting to sanction a principle which could only bring degradation to those who must become the subject of such an exclusion upon account of their opinions [hear, hear!]. To that principle, Sir, I repeat I could not submit. I would rather have quitted office a thousand times —I would rather be proscribed and persecuted by all who are disposed to proscribe and persecute for opinions—than live to be execrated to all futurity, for having, in my person, fixed such a blot upon the cause of those who thought that every man was free to hold opinions, although he might not be able to persuade others to adopt them [cheers].
I hope, Sir, I have now vindicated myself from the charges brought against me by the hon. gentleman, and satisfied the House that I am not so much possessed

433
with the spirit of overleaping ambition, as that hon. gentleman would have them believe. My first desire was to quit office altogether. I had no objection to act again with the members of the old government, but never could I accept of any place under it, short of that place to which I might have aspired, if my sentiments had been adverse to Catholic emancipation. But did this rule of conduct necessarily produce the consequences to which my right hon. friend (Mr. Peel), and another hon. gentleman, in coarser language, alluded; namely, that the government of my suggestion must consist of Catholics? Certainly not. I have been taunted, and in no obscure terms, with something like a breach of faith with my Sovereign, for not proposing some plan which would embrace an equal portion of both sides in the administration. The late under-secretary, who made this imputation, does not happen to be well-informed on this subject. In fact, I did make such a proposition, and I did every thing in my power to reduce it to practice. But, Sir, was it my fault that on the 12th of April, when I went to the chamber of my Sovereign, with the intention of proposing a plan of arrangement which should embrace all the members of lord Liverpool's government, and embrace, therefore, an equality of Protestant and Catholic votes, or rather, I should say, a preponderance of Protestant votes in the cabinet, the extraordinary coincidence occurred—I by no means wish to call it a concert—of his Majesty receiving, at the same moment, in the chamber, the resignations of six Protestant members of that administration [I call them Protestant only in the parlance of this House]. Observe, Sir, the charge against me is, that I have organized a government all Catholic, as to its views upon that question, having promised to form one that should be half and half; and my hon. accuser sinks the indisputable fact, that the Protestant half of the administration withdrew themselves. I think it is rather too hard to charge that resignation upon their parts, as a breach of faith upon mine [here Mr. Peel suggested, that all the resignations were not Protestant; there was one Catholic, lord Melville]. I beg pardon, Sir; I have unwillingly included in the number of these resignations my lord Melville, and am well reminded that we have been told, on the present occasion, that his resignation, also, was upon the ground of the Catholic question, of
434
which he has always been a supporter. Lord Melville's resignation I did not mean to include in this enumeration; so that, instead of six, I should have said five, Protestant resignations. However, five Protestant resignations, at all events, came into the king's hands, within twenty-four hours; and thus, five of the members on whom I had reckoned for the new cabinet, were at once withdrawn; and, upon this statement, I again ask the House, whether it is fair to impute to me a wilful non-execution of the orders of my Sovereign, in the formation of that cabinet [hear, hear].
But, Sir, did the matter rest here? About the middle of Thursday—I believe it was on a Thursday that the House adjourned—about two hours before the meeting of the House, and after I had given directions to move a new writ for my return, I received these resignations. Upon receiving them, I said to my Sovereign, "Here, Sire, is that which disables me from executing the orders I have received from you, respecting the formation of a new administration. It is now open to your Majesty to adopt a new course, for no step has yet been taken in the execution of those orders that is irrecoverable; but it becomes my duty fairly to state to your Majesty, that if I am to go on in the position where you have been pleased to place me, my writ must be moved for to-day; for if we wait until the holidays, without adopting any definitive steps, I see that it is quite hopeless for me to attempt to persevere in the objects I have undertaken." I cannot repeat to the House, the words in which my Sovereign graciously replied to this representation, but I may state that he was pleased to give me his hand to kiss, and confirmed me in the office to which I had been named [loud cheers].
These, then, Sir, are the steps which I really have taken; these are the means by which I have been placed in the station I at present fill. I have meddled not with the conduct or the motives of any other man. I have already expressed my unequivocal, unqualified, approbation of the course pursued by my right hon. friend (Mr. Peel), and of the candour with which he has declared himself on that point. What have been the principles of conduct of others among my late colleagues, for the best of reasons, I do not pretend to say; for really I do not know them. That conduct I can only view by its results; results which have been assuredly most

435
painful; and I may truly say, to me, as painful as, in almost every instance —every instance I do not say, for I sedulously except my right hon. friend—they were wholly unexpected. Sir, I really knew not in what way I had sinned in the eyes of my late colleagues—those other of my colleagues, I should rather say—that they should decline acting with me. I had never offended them intentionally, nor do I know that I had ever excited among them unwittingly any feeling so hostile or personal to me, as to be at all likely to lead to such a result. Between my right hon. friend and myself, it is almost unnecessary for me to observe, that upon every subject, in every discussion I can call to mind, upon all great questions of foreign or domestic policy and legislation—this one unhappy question of Catholic emancipation excepted—there has been that sort of general agreement, that I do not believe there exists the individual with whom my opinions are in more complete accordance—[loud cheers]—and I do think that hardly any greater calamity could have befallen the country, than my right hon. friend's secession from office, not only as respects his administration of the Home Department, but as regards the important share which he has so long taken in the great councils of the country, and the share that is still open to him, and still, I trust, to be filled by him, in the general discussions of this House. But as to others of my late colleagues, I am not prepared to express an opinion on the proceeding they have adopted, because of its motives I am not aware. So far, indeed, as I had reason to know any thing of their dispositions in relation to myself—I speak now more particularly in reference to the line of foreign policy which I have pursued, as being that department of the government with which I was more immediately connected—I understood that my official conduct had received their unqualified approbation. Both in the cabinet, and in the two Houses of parliament, they expressed such favourable opinions; nor can I charge myself with having, by any measures of my own, produced intentionally any such change in those opinions as should have led to this unwillingness on their parts to continue to act with me. As I am resolved not to say any thing which may be called unkind, I have abstained, therefore, in what I have said, from stating any thing more than how I am situated with respect to my late col-
436
leagues, and how I came to be so [hear, hear!].
There were, however, one or two topics adverted to by my right hon. friend, upon which he must allow me to make one or two observations; not, as I can most cordially assure him, with any hostile or unpleasant feeling; but that I may set myself right upon points touching which he has proceeded rather upon a mistake, than from any intentional misrepresentation. My right hon. friend, when he addressed the House, said, how was it possible not to perceive, that without my doing any thing active in the cause of the Catholics, without my moving even a finger in their support, my mere existence in my present position, and the absence of those others—for whose absence, be it recollected, I am not responsible—must be taken as a moral promotion of that question upon which we have been hitherto divided [cheers]. Sir, I cannot possibly deny the truth of that observation [cries of hear!]. It is literally true; and any one who will take the trouble to put that question and that answer together, must find in the answer a reply to the taunts of the hon. member for Somerset (sir T. Lethbridge), when speaking of the support which the late opposition have declared their intention to bestow upon the present administration. That opposition have declared their intention to support me. And why? Because they see the very same thing about to come to pass as the right hon. gentleman—that without stirring, as I have said, a single step in the advocacy of the cause they have espoused, my mere existence where I am is an unquestionable advance of their object [hear, hear!]. If it be so, as it is I cannot help it. I am ready to anticipate the advantages which it confers. But surely my right hon. friend is not prepared to contend, that a reason which has been good for him is bad for them. Surely he is not disposed to contend, that if he was justified in resigning his situation because he thought the Catholic cause, which he opposes, received an impulse by my advance, others are not equally justified in saying, that they will support me, because the question which they support has received that impulse [cheers]. If, therefore, the Catholic cause receives a support not by any of my endeavours, but merely from the effect of an impulse created by my situation, surely I cannot help the consequences; and I

437
can only say, in reply to the taunts of the hon. gentleman (sir T. Lethbridge), upon the subject of the support of the Opposition, that I trust they will upon those subjects afford me the support which I may be found to deserve, tempered only by that degree of difference which may be found to exist between us [hear, hear!].
How, I would ask, does the Catholic question stand now? I say, it stands precisely as it did in the year 1812—that is, in a particular part of the year 1812—for there is a difference. My right hon. friend, in adverting to that point, did not sufficiently distinguish one part of that year from the other, and by that means created an apparent inconsistency. It is very tiresome to refer to books in discussions of this kind; and not being anticipating the necessity of consulting them on this occasion, I did not bring them down with me; but in consequence of my right hon. friend's speech, I have sent for them, and I can now refer to them. My right hon. friend says, that in a debate which took place on the 25th of May, 1812, in assigning my reasons for not joining lord Liverpool's government at that time, I stated, that I should be coming into a cabinet that would smother my own opinions, or that I used expressions to that effect, and yet, that on the 22nd of June of the same year, I brought the Catholic question into this House, and carried it by a great and extraordinary majority. This is very true. But, did nothing, Sir, intervene between the 25th of May and the 22nd of June, to cause the change to which my right hon. friend alludes? Was there no alteration in the condition of the government, and the feeling of parliament upon that subject, during this interval? Yes: for on the 25th of May, which was shortly after the death of Mr. Perceval, lord Liverpool came to me, to propose to me to become a member of administration. What passed on this subject, gentlemen will be pleased to remember, was published, together with all the negotiations entered into on that occasion, and having been so recorded, they cannot have been since altered, to answer a temporary purpose. It appears by this book, that the first question I asked lord Liverpool was, "whether the opinions and policy of the government were to be considered altogether unchanged, touching the laws affecting the Roman Catholics?" Lord Liverpool answered, that his own opinions upon those matters undoubtedly remained unaltered, and he was
438
not aware that those of his colleagues had experienced any change. Now, here, Sir, I pause, to ask what was the condition in which the Catholic question stood then? At the period of the unrestricted regency, Mr. Perceval invited into his government, lord Sidmouth and lord Castlereagh; and in the very first debate upon this question which took place in this House, after that junction, Mr. Perceval and lord Castlereagh both declared themselves, in the course of the discussion, inimical to the agitation of the question at that opportunity. Lord Castlereagh said—the House will observe, that it was upon Mr. Grattan's motion, in April, 1812—"with respect to the vote I shall give to-night, my right hon. friend has clearly stated, that the cabinet intimates an opinion, that the propriety of further concessions to the Catholics could not now be agitated, nor any inquiry be gone into at present on the subject of the disabilities affecting his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland, with advantage to the empire, or a due regard to the welfare of the community at large." Why, then, Sir, the footing upon which the cabinet then stood, in respect of the Catholic question, was one of general resistance to it; and in the government itself, there was a joint determination to act upon that authority. It was in this state of things, that on the 25th of May, 1812, I refused to join in lord Liverpool's arrangements, and I gave him my reasons for not doing so, which were involved in that determination on the part of the cabinet. But what happened, Sir, in the mean time, between May the 25th, and June the 22nd? Why, that in June, lord Castlereagh came down to this House, and being questioned by the hon. Mr. Spencer Stanhope, whom many gentlemen round me will remember—as to the footing on which the Catholic question was then to stand (this was after the death of Mr. Perceval), lord Castlereagh said, "it was so far changed, that, whereas, up to that period, the cabinet, though consisting of members who were actuated by different opinions on the subject, had yet all concurred in resistance to it; they were now not only to speak, but to vote, if they thought proper, in pursuance of those respective opinions." Then, I contend, Sir, that between these two periods of which the right hon. gentleman has spoken, the cabinet itself was changed in its character, as regarded this question. It was changed,

439
by being put upon that independent footing, on which my right hon. friend and myself have voted in it together, for so many years. Did this altered condition of circumstances effect no change in the condition of the Catholic question? Assuredly, it did; and I well recollect its being hailed by Mr. Grattan, and many others, who voted with him, as a most important accession to that cause; and the proof of the fact is, that my motion was carried by a triumphant majority.
Now, Sir, I think I have sufficiently explained the difference which had arisen between the two periods in question as to this important subject, and as to my views upon it. I think, therefore, I have shown, that there was no inconsistency in my conduct between May and June; for it is fully explained by the change of circumstances which took place. I certainly opposed the agitation of the question, so long as the government was united to oppose it, but when every member of the government was at liberty to express his opinions, I supported it. Upon the 25th of May I made a speech in this House, and I have not the vanity to think that that speech produced the result which followed; but three weeks after this, the conversation took place between Mr. Spencer Stanhope and lord Castlereagh, to which I now call the attention of the House. The right hon. gentleman here read the following passages from the Parliamentary Debates:—
"Mr. Spencer Stanhope rosefor the purpose of putting a question to the noble lord opposite. He wished to know if it was intended, on the part of the present ministers, that the same policy, in every respect, should be observed by them, in reference to the Catholic question, which has been observed by the administration under the conduct of a late right hon. gentleman?
"Lord Castlereaghsaid, that he felt some difficulty in answering the question of the hon. gentleman literally, the arrangements for the new ministry not having been yet fully completed. But as to the spirit of the question, he thought he could be more satisfactory. He could say this, from his knowledge of those employed in forming that administration, that, generally, their sentiments remained the same. Upon a former occasion, they had thought, inclusive even of those who were favourable to the measure, that the present was not
440
the time for discussing the question; and in still thinking so, the recent decisions of parliament formed a leading consideration in influencing the adoption of that opinion. The sense of parliament having been at least for the present, definitively pronounced, they thought that any immediate revived discussion would only create irritation, without being productive of any thing useful. He was aware, however, of the growing change in favour of those claims; and in submission to that change, and the real sentiments of certain members of the government, it had been resolved upon as a principle, that the discussion of this question should be left free from all interference on the part of the government, and that every member of that government should be left to the free and unbiassed suggestions of his own conscientious discretion." Here, then, it is evident, that a complete change was, at that time, considered to have occurred, between the 25th May and the 25th of June 1812, in the opinions of the government. At the former period, the cabinet were all united in resistance to the Catholic question; at the latter, it was to be left open and free to the unbiassed discussion of all or any of the members of that cabinet.
But, to come to the present condition of that question—I say again, that it remains under this government in precisely the state it was truly described to be in by lord Castlereagh in 1812; and precisely as it has been since repeatedly described by myself; in short, as it was described by me to be in 1825, in a debate which took place, in the month of March, upon the state of Ireland; and in the very last debate, in the same year, upon Catholic emancipation. On that occasion, I perceive I used these words: "He held himself as perfectly free as any other member of that House, to pronounce an opinion upon that great national question, and as such to give it his support, reserving to himself the right of selecting the time when he was to give that support, and the manner in which it was to be afforded, according to his judgment of the degree of success which was likely to attend such an exertion." Those were the words which I used then, and my opinions are not in the slightest degree changed. Such was the footing upon which this question stood when I was the colleague of my right hon. friend; and on that same footing it stands now. Let it be observed, therefore, by

441
those with whom I have formerly acted, and from whose objections on this occasion I do not shrink, however the acknowledgment I have made may be attempted to be converted into matter of opposition to us, that, with those who form the present cabinet—and some of whom formed part of the last—the Catholic question now stands on the same ground as it stood on under lord Liverpool's government. That is, it is a question which each member of the government is at liberty, if he pleases, to propound to parliament; but if any member of the government shall so bring it forward in either House of Parliament, he is distinctly to state, that he does it in his individual capacity only, and not as pledging his colleagues to his own opinions on the subject. This, Sir, is the position of the Catholic question now; it is the same in which it has now stood for fifteen years in which it was placed in 1812; it is the same successively. That it should remain in this state has, I know, been objected to by many; but if I consider the state of the country at large—the inclination of men's minds upon the subject in England, as well as in Ireland—and the infinite difficulties which surround the attempt at present to alter that state—it is, in my judgment, and in my conscience, I believe it to be, the only footing upon which it can at present be safely left. And if there be any who would seek to put forward the question beyond that point, and who hope to accomplish their object, by a premature exertion of power on the one hand; or if there be others who would not hesitate to stifle all just and natural expression of feeling or opinion, at the risk of a national convulsion, I can only say that I am not of their number, and that I am not prepared for the convulsion either in England or Ireland [loud cheers]. I would not raise hopes which I do not see any immediate means of realizing. In making this observation, I am not speaking of the moral accomplishment of those hopes, but of exciting expectations without having good grounds to anticipate their immediate or speedy fulfilment. I remember too well—and but a short memory indeed is required for that purpose—how much has been uttered in the way of complaint, in the debates of this House upon the Catholic question, about things being said and done in Ireland, that had raised expectations which ought not to have been excited, unless the authorities from whom
442
those acts and declarations emanated, were prepared to follow them up. Now, Sir, it is precisely because of my not being at present prepared to follow them up, that I will not raise such expectations. Much and cordially as I agree with those who view the measure of emancipation, as calculated to tranquillize Ireland; I yet estimate very highly the degree of passive resistance to it, which exists in this country. I would not run against the feelings any more than I would against the interest of England. But if, looking to the character and extent of that resistance, I am asked whether I despair of the ultimate success of the question, I answer, that I do not despair that the good sense of the English people, after a candid discussion and repeated consideration of it, in spite of mere factious resistance to the claims themselves, will ultimately concede those claims. I say, I think, Sir, the time will come when well-meaning, and conscientious, and intelligent people, now among the most strenuous and most honest opponents of this great measure, will look back with a degree of surprise, and almost incredulity, at the opposition which they have, up to that time, manifested to it. But, though I think this, I am not prepared to run counter, in the mean time, to those feelings. A single week of peace in England, is worth a much larger portion of time devoted to the accomplishment of a great, but, as yet, a theoretical, good in another portion of the empire. Though I thus confidently expect the dawn, I am by no means prepared to hasten it—though I know the present darkness upon the subject (for darkness I must consider it) will be succeeded by illumination in the minds of men, I am disposed to watch patiently the progress of that enlightenment. This result I heartily hope; but I will not endeavour to anticipate it by any attempt to force the judgments of any portion of the community [hear].
I hope I have now, Sir, given to honourable gentlemen every necessary explanation upon the topics which have been this night referred to. So far, as I am aware, I have kept nothing back; but when I am taunted by questions such as that which an hon. gentleman has put to me, whether I do not know that, in the very penetralia of the royal breast, there exists feelings repugnant to the Catholic claims, I reply, that I would venerate in that illustrious individual, as I did in Ins royal father, the

443
repugnant feelings which actuate him on this question. I would hurt no feelings, as I have already said, of that nature. But, if I am asked by that hon. gentleman, whether I think the Coronation oath is any obstacle in the way of concession on the part of the Crown, I answer, no [hear, hear]. No more did lord Liverpool—no more did my right hon. friend himself; and if the time should ever come when it may be necessary to argue that question, I shall derive my best argument for the view I take of that point, from the opinions which have already been addressed to parliament upon the subject by those great men. Let not, then, the people of England be led away with the notion, that by the carrying of the Catholic question, the peace of their country would be endangered. The time has passed when those pernicious influences, which have been so much adverted to, could be any longer exercised by the Catholic church, with any effect, upon its security or its welfare. But, does the hon. gentleman, who so much deprecates all discussion of this question, imagine that it can be avoided? Does he imagine that this is an object of political necessity, the accomplishment of which can be overlooked? Does he suppose that if we will not consider it now, it is a question that will sleep? The question, Sir, may sleep for a time, but it is that sleep from which it will awake with renovated strength, to the accomplishment of its final triumph. Looking at the question as it stands now, and judging according to the evidence which presses upon me, I cannot conceal from myself the fact, that it has gained a vast accession of force, although, God knows, that gain was not of my seeking. But it was not gained in that manner which could induce me to force it upon this House, when I see so large a portion of the community holding a contrary opinion.
I am not conscious that I have omitted to reply to any of the matters which have been suggested to me; but if I have, I shall be sincerely obliged to any querist, who will remind me, be he who he may, of any such omissions. I trust I have succeeded in shewing that I am where I have the honour to be—not by my own seeking, but by the pleasure of my Sovereign. I had previously made arrangements for an administration, under which I should have been excluded from this situation. That plan was refused by those
444
whom it embraced, and another prepared in its stead, to which I could not have acceded, without, at the same time, recording my acknowledgment that the opinions of my past political life, upon one of the most important of all the questions which I have ever been called on to consider, furnished a justifiable ground for my exclusion from any sort of participation in the government which this latter proposal was to organise.
I will close this address, Sir, by repeating one or two remarks which I remember to have submitted to the House in 1822. I was then appointed to a post, which I owed not to the favour of his Majesty's government, but to the commands of his Majesty himself; a post fraught with wealth, distinction, and honour. From this post I was recalled immediately after my nomination to it, contrary to my own feelings and wishes, and recalled to hold office in this country. I made the sacrifice—to a poor man, be it permitted me to say, no indifferent or trivial one—without hesitation, and, so help me God! without any stipulation. But if, Sir, when that proposal to take office was made to me, it had been accompanied—as in fairness it should have been, if I was to be ousted on account of the opinions that have since been excepted against me—with this sort of intimation from the ministers who recalled me:—"Though we call you into the government, because your services are necessary to us, yet remember, that if by any unfortunate chance, the highest situation in that government should become vacant, and should, in all other respects, be eligible for a person holding your situation in parliament and in the councils of the country—remember, that because you support the Catholic claims you are to wave all pretensions to it." If their proposal, I say, had been accompanied with such an intimation, I would have turned that proposal back with the disdain and indignation with which I have more recently rejected their offer to serve under a Protestant cabinet (using this term Protestant in the familiar sense only in which we are accustomed to use it in discussions of this kind) to serve under the same men, in short, on a condition which I should regard as the badge of my Helotism, and as the indelible disgrace of my political existence [loud cheers].
Mr. Peel,in explanation, observed, that what he had alluded to, in saying, that

445
the position which his right hon. friend occupied in 1812 very nearly resembled that in which he (Mr. Peel) now stood; and that the reasons which his right hon. friend assigned for not joining the government then very much resembled the reasons that actuated him (Mr. Peel) in seceding from the government at present—appeared to have been a little misunderstood. He had, in truth, observed, that the cabinet of 1812 was founded on a principle of equality and perfect fairness; seeing that every member of that government was to be at liberty to vote on the Catholic question according to his own opinions on the matter; and this was apparent from the course of conduct pursued by the late lord Londonderry. His noble friend, on this subject, observed, that he was not demanding securities, for he had the votes against him, of lord Sidmouth and Mr. Perceval; and finally, it appeared, that the government of 1812, had come to exactly the same conclusion on this topic as the present government. Be that as it might, there was one part of his right hon. friend's speech, to which he attached much more importance. It was that in which his right hon. friend had used the word "coincidence," remarking, in a tone not to be misunderstood, that although he did not impute any concert to the parties, yet, by a strange" coincidence," six Protestant resignations were put into his hands at once, while he was reporting to his Majesty on the steps he had been taking for the formation of a new government. Now, it was but justice to those honourable men who were his late colleagues, to prevent any such imputation from being fastened on them. If those resignations were all brought in upon that Thursday, it certainly would have been a most unfortunate coincidence; but he was bound to say, that such was not the fact. On Wednesday, the 10th of April, his right hon. friend received a commission to concoct his new administration. On that very 10th of April, in the evening, he saw his right hon. friend, who said to him, "I am afraid you are not prepared to give me any other answer than that which you have already given me." He answered, that he was not; but he gave in no resignation. On April the 10th, he certainly said, it was impossible for him, he thought, to join a government, the head of which entertained principles on the Catholic question so different from his own. On the same night,
446
the lord Chancellor intimated to his right hon. friend the same conviction. Now, he thought that the lord Chancellor had acted on this occasion a very honourable part; for he observed to him (Mr. Peel), "I have long sought an opportunity to resign.—My time of life has made it necessary that I should do so. A new event has occurred, that enables me to accomplish this wish. Whatever my opinions may be on the Catholic question, it is hardly necessary for me now to re-state them; for the question is merely whether I must revoke an intention I had previously formed of tendering my resignation, or go on acting with a minister, who, upon that question, is most decidedly opposed to me." He further understood the lord Chancellor to say, that although he was thus desirous to resign, he was disposed to remain in office for some few weeks longer, with the intention of delivering some judgments [a laugh].
Mr. Canningsaid, he did not understand from the lord Chancellor, on the evening of the 10th of April, that it was his intention to resign; and he assured his right hon. friend, that he had received the resignation of that noble lord in the chamber of his Sovereign on the 11th of April, along with the other resignations to which he had adverted.
Mr. Peel,adverting to the shortness of the period between the 10th of April, when these intimations upon his own part and that of the lord Chancellor were first signified, and the 12th, when their resignations were given in, observed, that that was quite enough to account for their accidental delivery at the moment to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded. I am pretty certain (said Mr. Peel), that the letters were written on the 11th or 12th. Lord Westmoreland's letter was dated the 11th, and lords Bathurst's and Melville's on the 12th. These facts, Sir, I think, will shew that, however extraordinary the coincidence alluded to by my right hon. friend, the time was too short for concert. But, whether the coincidence was extraordinary or not, I pledge my word, as a man of honour, that the answers were not concerted [hear, hear], and that on Thursday, the 12th, no one of my colleagues said to another "my answer shall be the same as yours," or entered into any communication on the subject that could lead to a concerted arrangement, or imply the existence of any doubt

447
or contingency in the minds of parties [hear, hear]. As for the lord Chancellor's decision, what could be more natural? It must, indeed, have been expected. I have heard the sarcasms uttered in this House, that if Catholic emancipation were made a point in the formation of an administration, the lord Chancellor would accede to it rather than give up his place; and I do think it a little hard, now that he adheres to his principles, and refuses office rather than concede them, that he should be charged with joining in a cabal [hear, hear]. Cabal, I do declare, there was none. It ought always to be borne in mind that when lords Bathurst and Melville found that the duke of Wellington, the lord Chancellor, and myself, had already retired from office, they might sincerely doubt whether it was possible that an administration could be formed which would maintain the principles of lord Liverpool. It appears, indeed, to me, by no means impossible that honourable and conscientious men might doubt whether, under such circumstances, with my right hon. friend at the head of the government, it was at all likely those principles would be maintained. I did not see the letters until after they were written; and I declare, upon my honour, that I do not believe they were concerted: and I do hope that, whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the motives of the step taken, it will be considered that I have vindicated myself and my colleagues from the charge of caballing against our Sovereign.
The motion for the new writs was then agreed to, and the House adjourned.