Mr. Humebegged to put a question to the noble Lord opposite, before he determined 1072 what he should do on the subject of the Call for Monday. He begged to ask, whether such an arrangement had taken place as was likely to satisfy that House, that matters were in progress by which the carrying of the Reform Bill would be secured?
§ Lord AlthorpI am happy, Sir, to take the earliest opportunity of rising to state, in answer to the question of the hon. Member, what has been done. I beg to state to the House, that his Majesty's Ministers conceive they have secured for the passing of the Reform Bill such an arrangement as they deem sufficient, and, therefore, that we continue to hold the offices we are now in possession of.
Lord MiltonUnder the circumstances stated by my noble friend, it is, perhaps, desirable, that I should state for the information of Gentlemen to whom my intentions have been communicated, that after the assurance which my noble friend has just made, it is no longer my intention to submit to this House that Address which I had previously proposed to offer for their adoption.
Mr. HumeAnd I beg, Sir, to move to discharge the Order for the Call of the House, which I had before fixed for Monday next.
Sir Robert PeelI was not aware, Sir, of the intention of the noble Lord to submit any proposition to this House. If I had been, as a man deeply interested in the prosperity of the State, deeply interested, too, in seeing some termination of the present state of affairs consistent with the honour of all parties, I should have deprecated this untimely interference. Even if the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had not made the announcement which he has now made, if it had been found impossible that the present Ministry should return to office, I should have risen for the purpose of entreating the noble Lord, not without notice—not without giving us an opportunity of maturing our opinions, most certainly not, while negotiations were still pending—to bring before this House any vote which could by possibility interpose fresh difficulties in the way of an arrangement. That is the course which, in the best exercise of my discretion, I should have recommended him to pursue. But all intervention on this subject on the part of the House of Commons is precluded by the communication which the noble Lord has just made. The House will, perhaps, 1073 permit me, although there is no one who is more averse to trouble them with explanations of a personal nature, yet, as the crisis is so important, and the part which I have taken has been so much discussed, the House will, perhaps, permit me to occupy their attention for a few moments, while I state the grounds on which the decision I came to was formed. I will make this explanation as briefly as possible, and what I am about to state shall be merely for my own vindication. On Wednesday last a communication was made to me by a noble friend, for whom, notwithstanding all the calumnies that have been directed against him, I avow that I entertain the sincerest esteem, I mean Lord Lyndhurst, yes, Sir, I will not shrink notwithstanding the difference of opinion which a majority of this House may express, from making an avowal of the high opinion I entertain of the talents and of the public character of that noble Lord. On Wednesday last Lord Lyndhurst waited on me, stating—not that he had authority from his Majesty to form an Administration, but that, having been his Majesty's Lord Chancellor—now holding a high judicial situation—and being, on that account, out of the immediate vortex of political affairs; he had been for these reasons, selected by his Majesty, for the purpose of conferring with him on the present state of affairs. The noble Lord inquired whether I considered it to be in my power to enter into the King's service at this crisis? He stated the difficulties in which his Majesty had been placed by the resignation of his late servants, on account of his refusal to create Peers for the purpose of carrying the Reform Bill. I was informed that the only other person who had been then consulted was the Duke of Wellington, who was determined to assist his Majesty in any way—who wished no office, but who was ready to take office, if his taking of office was considered likely to facilitate the formation of a Government. Although no communication was then made to me by the express command of his Majesty, yet, as I see no occasion to maintain any reserve when entering on an explanation of this kind, I will state that I did understand the question as formally put to me, whether I was willing to accept that office which in political life is supposed to be the highest object of ambition. I ought to state, in justice to the King, that it was at the same time notified to me, that the acceptance of 1074 office must be on the clear understanding that his Majesty's past declarations with regard to Reform be fulfilled, and that whoever took office must accept it on the condition of introducing an extensive measure of Reform. I replied to Lord Lyndhurst, I admit, upon the impulse of the moment, but upon an impulse which my maturer judgment only served to confirm, that no authority nor example of any man, or any number of men, could shake my resolution not to accept office under existing circumstances, upon such conditions. I answered under the influence of feelings which no reasoning could abate, that it would not be for my honour, or for the advantage of the country, that I should accept office, on the condition of introducing an extensive measure of Reform. In the present state of affairs, I considered, and I believe with perfect justice, that by extensive Reform was meant the adoption of the leading provisions of the Bill. I do not say all the provisions of the Bill, without exception, but all that are essential to carry into full effect its principles. I said to Lord Lyndhurst, that I must decide for myself on the instant, on a review of the peculiar situation in which I stood; that I felt the difficulties in which the King was placed; that I had never entertained so strong a wish to serve his Majesty as I now did, for the purpose of removing those difficulties; but that, if I were to accept office without an unreproaching conscience—if I were to enter this House for the purpose of discharging its duties without a light heart, a firm step, and an erect aspect, I could render no effectual service to his Majesty, or to the country. What is the situation in which I stand with respect to Reform—to that measure, the adoption of the principles of which was to be the condition of my appointment to office, I have given it the most strenuous opposition, continued to the latest moment. I deprecated the principle of the Bill, fraught as I believe it to be with injustice. I considered it a revolutionary measure, calculated to introduce such changes in the practical working of the Constitution, as, if not revolutionary in themselves, would lead to revolution; and, therefore, to the principles and details of that Bill I have offered to the last, my most decided opposition. Those with whom I have co-operated received a declaration from me very early, that I should take that course with respect to Reform 1075 and the Reform Bill, that must preclude me from taking office under circumstances like the present; and, having done that, where is he who thinks, that out of 658 Members of this House I could be the chosen man to stand in that place as Minister, in order to recommend the adoption of that Bill of which I had been the chief opponent? If it were necessary to select a person as a mediator between hostile parties, am I, who have been the head of one of those parties, proper to be selected for that purpose? Is it likely, in proposing modifications of the Bill, that I, of all men could have persuaded the majority to which I have been opposed, to acquiesce in my recommendation for the improvement of their Bill? I ground the vindication of the course I have taken (if vindication be necessary) on the peculiar position in which I personally stand. So far from calling in question the motives of others, who were inclined to take office in order to relieve the King from the difficulties with which he was surrounded, that I hold them in the utmost respect. I firmly believe, that those men who were willing, at such a crisis, to devote themselves to the service of the Crown, acted not only from the most disinterested motives, but from motives the highest and purest by which public men could be actuated. Their reasons for taking that course were, that they should have lowered themselves in their own esteem if they had not been ready to make that sacrifice; and it was precisely on the same ground, a sense of personal honour, on which I decided that I could not take office in order to carry the Reform Bill. That conviction was rooted too strongly in my mind, to make it possible that my service could be useful service. Some allowance, Sir, must be made for human failings. Other considerations were amply sufficient; but I could not cast out of my view the conduct I had been compelled to pursue with respect to the Catholic Bill. I then reviewed my former declarations, and took a course directly contrary to that I had before pursued. But, Sir, the difference between the two cases was great. I was then the responsible adviser of the Crown, and, looking at the state of the country, the state of public opinion, and at the general condition of Europe, I thought it my duty to submit to the King, on a review of the then existing circumstances, that there was an immediate and pressing evil which must be 1076 remedied without delay, and that the danger of further resistance to the claims of the Roman Catholics was, upon the whole, greater than the concession. I gave that advice to the Crown; but I say now, as I have said before, that I did all that it was possible to do to relieve myself from the necessity of proposing that measure, and to retire from office. But even if it were possible to repeat the conduct I then pursued, this is not a repetition of the Catholic Question; I have not advised the King to propose the Reform Bill; I am not a responsible Minister of the Crown; and being out of office, I felt myself perfectly justified in declining to enter it on a condition (perhaps an unavoidable condition) that my first act should be the proposal of Reform—I say the proposal of it—because it would have been a miserable evasion, to place some other person in the situation of proposer, with my consent to, and support of the proposal. It may be—indeed it has been said—that the English Bill of Reform had passed the House of Commons—and that, therefore, a Minister in the House of Commons would have had no further concern with it. This may be technically true, so far as discussion in the House is concerned—but what advice was that Minister to give to the King, with respect to the progress of the Bill in the Lords? Was he to advise that it should pass unmodified—or that it should pass subject to modification and change? In either case did he not virtually adopt the Bill, as much as if it still had remained under consideration in the House of Commons? But even if there be any force in this observation with respect to the English Bill of Reform, what is the case with respect to the Scotch, and to the Irish Bill? They have not passed the House of Commons—they are here undecided on; and the first consequence of my acceptance of office must have been the completion and perfection of two Bills, to one of which at least—namely, the Irish, I am decidedly opposed. I ask any man whther it be likely that I could, as Minister, bring either one or the other to a satisfactory termination. But I look further than to either of these Bills—I speak of the measure of Reform generally. Granted that the immediate settlement of that question is now become unavoidable—granted that there is as much danger, as circumstances now stand, in peremptory rejection, as there can be in any other 1077 course that can be taken; that the best result would be, the acceptance of the Bill with extensive modifications not incompatible with its main principles. Even in that case, could such modifications be proposed by me with any prospect of advantage? From the original authors of the measure modification might be accepted; and I do trust that they will now feel, that they can originate with honour all modifications which they may think reasonable and just. But modifications suggested by a decided opponent, would not be received by the country as a final settlement of the question. The parties who are now about, for the first time, to receive privileges from the provisions of this Bill, would consider themselves under no obligations for such privileges, if they were extorted from an enemy to the Bill, but would receive them with an increased desire to acquire in a second Bill that which had not been conceded in the first. These are the reasons that prompted me to take the course which I have pursued on this occasion. The impulse on which I acted, when first applied to, satisfied me at that time, and reason has since convinced me, that neither for my own honour, nor for public advantage, could I accept office, if the acceptance of office was to be under the condition of supporting the provisions of the Bill, either as it now exists in the House of Lords, or with such modifications only as were consistent with its main provisions. These opinions separated me from some noble friends of mine, who did not feel themselves placed in the same situation. I regret that separation, even though it be temporary, particularly the separation from that man whom I chiefly honour, and I am anxious to declare, that even that separation has only raised him in my esteem. One word more. It has been insinuated, in some of those channels through which the public generally obtain their information, that I have been influenced in the course which I have pursued, by the lurking suspicion that any Government now to be established could not be permanent, and that I was a party to the formation of a phantom Government which should carry the Reform Bill, in the belief that, when that was done, I could step in and build my authority and power upon the ruins of that Administration. If there is any Gentleman in this House who thinks my conduct open to the slightest suspicion in this respect, who thinks it in 1078 the least necessary for me to explain it, I will satisfy him that that was not the motive of the course which I pursued. The only opinion I expressed was (if a reconciliation between his Majesty and the members of his Majesty's Government should prove impracticable) in favour of an arrangement which was most likely to be permanent, and which, while it continued in operation, must necessarily exclude me from office. As, however, some person has stated, that on this subject he defies contradiction, and that I was a party to an understanding such as I have mentioned, I beg leave, in as distinct words as one man is capable of using in contradicting another, to declare that it is an infamous falsehood. I look at the circumstances in which the country is placed with much deeper interest than any I can have in my return to office, and I can with truth assert, that this is the last consideration to which I have adverted in any advice I have given in reference to recent events.
§ Lord AlthorpAfter the speech just made by the right hon. Gentleman, it is quite impossible for me to avoid saying a few words. Though it has been my fate to be opposed to him in politics, I have never had reason to suspect that he, in any part of his conduct, has departed from that line which an honourable man ought to pursue. Feeling this, I can not remain silent, after hearing the right hon. Gentleman allude to the insinuations made against his conduct, but I must declare, that the statement he has made has given me great satisfaction, and it proves that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman has been on this, as on all former occasions, worthy of his high reputation.
Mr. Baringsaid, that no one had heard with greater satisfaction than he had, the communication made by the noble Lord opposite, not only on account of the welfare of the country, but on account of the particular situation in which he found himself. He had no intention of addressing more than a few observations to the House, and in them he should cautiously abstain from employing any topics, or referring to any circumstance which might occasion a debate on the events that had just taken place. But if he should sit entirely silent after the explanation of his right hon. friend, perhaps the House would think that in some respects he might be open to the imputation that the right hon. Gentleman's conduct might seem to throw 1079 upon those who had pursued a different line of conduct. He felt all the difficulties of the case which his right hon. friend had stated. He knew the motives stated were true, because most of them had been communicated to him. He was able, therefore, confidently to state what were the motives assigned at the time, and he was happy to be able to do so, since, though those motives were so easily understood, and were so obvious to any one who judged rightly, yet there were few who did judge in that manner, or who did not willingly receive imputations on the motives of public men. At the same time, speaking of the case of the right hon. Gentleman abstractedly, he must say, that he differed from the right hon. Gentleman as to the course he had pursued. He had ventured to press upon the right hon. Gentleman a different line of conduct. The view he had taken of the matter, and that which he had reason to suppose had been taken by the noble Duke who took the principal part in the affair, was, not that any Administration was to be formed to carry the Reform Bill, or to sanction or support it, so as to sacrifice the character of the persons composing that Administration—but the simple question was, the King being ready to consent that this Bill, in substance, should pass, to obviate those circumstances connected with the passing of this Bill to which he could not adhere, and to resist which he called for assistance. That was the position of things when Lord Lyndhurst was sent for, and when the Duke of Wellington undertook to see whether some arrangements could not be made. Suppose, that Gentlemen admitted the King to be right—suppose the King said, that the passing of this Bill was essential in the state of the country—was that a reason, because Ministers had the country at their back and could not be resisted, that they were to avail themselves of these circumstances to force the King's consent to other circumstances to which, as a Monarch, the King could not agree. Because his Majesty believed that Reform was essential and necessary to the peace and tranquillity of the country, and because he had declared that opinion, should he be accused of changing his opinion, merely for not having consented to yield to other circumstances of a dissimilar nature? He (Mr. Baring) did not wish to argue that view of the question, but that being the view he took of it, then came 1080 the question, whether any man in the noble Duke's situation was to say, "No, I have taken such a line of conduct, that whatever difficulties you may labour under, whatever contumely may be heaped upon you, whatever may be your condition, I can offer you no assistance." That was the strict, and, as he considered it, the honest way of viewing the subject. No Gentleman who had read a line or passed through his mind a thought on the Constitution of the country, would say that that was not the proper view of the case. When he saw the Duke of Wellington, his Grace stated, that he should be ashamed to crawl—that was the word his Grace used—that he should be ashamed to crawl about the metropolis if he did not go to the assistance of the King. He did not wish to go further into explanation, but he must say, that, so far from what some miserable minds that were themselves actuated by the motives which they imputed to others, being true, the arrangement proposed would have excluded the noble Duke from power, and probably from office. He must say, that great as was his admiration of that great man, he had never seen any thing that was a proof of greater magnanimity than the resolution which he then came to. By his conduct he had exposed himself to the abuse and scurrility of the lower orders, and particularly of the Press; but among all who troubled themselves to understand, no one would hesitate to say, that though he might have acted more prudently and cautiously, he could not have exhibited a greater act of heroism. The object of the King was, if possible, to reform the Commons without destroying the Peers, although Gentlemen on the other side of the House might possibly think, that to have added to the number of Lords would have greatly improved them. If the Duke of Wellington had failed to answer the call of his Majesty, the necessary consequence must have been, that he would have been thrown back upon his former Ministers. What then would have been the King's situation? He would have been placed in the grasp of an Administration which compelled him to do acts to which he was entirely adverse. The King could have no will of his own. The House would recollect, that when insanity unfortunately attacked George 3rd, the utmost care was taken to ascertain whether his Majesty could exercise any degree of volition, before a Re- 1081 gency was appointed; but with respect to William 4th there would not be an absence of volition, but a presence of an adverse volition. He put it to any man, whether such would be a proper situation in which to place the King of this country according to its Constitution. The Duke of Wellington saw his Majesty's extremity, and finding, too, that nobody would go to assist him, he stepped forward and did his duty. To say the least of it his conduct had been highly meritorious.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, he had always understood that the King of England was not responsible, but that his Ministers were. He must protest against the doctrine that had been broached, insinuating responsibility in the Monarch. If the great and fundamental principle that the King can do no wrong, were to be abolished, he believed it would be most dangerous for the country. In all previous changes of Administration a new policy had been the result of the change. The King, in changing his Administration, might have personal opinions with regard to the basis on which the new Government should be formed; and as the choice of Ministers was in the breast of the Crown, those opinions might form the basis of any future system of Government, provided the Minister who accepted the responsible situation, chose to be answerable for the consequences that might be the result of adopting such a line, and thus, the mere acceptance of office was in itself an act for which a Minister would have to answer to Parliament, if the acceptance was connected with any great measure of State policy. He did not mean to deny that the King had a right to choose his own Minister, or to submit to that Minister the line which he expected him to adopt; but he maintained, that the King of England in so doing, acted upon his own free will—that he could be pledged or bound to no one upon the subject—that he was as perfectly at liberty to change the whole plan of State management, as the new Minister was at liberty to accept or refuse being a party to any arrangement as a basis upon which the Government should be conducted. To apply this doctrine to present circumstances: his Majesty's present Ministers had resigned, in consequence of a refusal of the King to exercise the prerogative of the Crown to an extent never before heard of; and the Duke of Wellington was called upon to form a new Administration, it 1082 being understood that the basis upon which such a Government was to be formed should be the Reform Bill of Earl Grey, or something like it. To propose this basis to the new Minister, or to the person whom his Majesty wished to be his Minister, was within the competency of the King; but that proposition could only be the result of his own free will. The Duke of Wellington, who had strenuously opposed Reform, had but one alternative, since his Majesty had expressed so decided an opinion about the Bill; he was either to undertake to pass the Bill, or a measure in all its leading features like it, or else he was to retire with the certainty that the Bill would be passed, and that a large creation of Peers would be made. The choice, therefore, of rejecting the Bill was not in the power of his Grace, that was not the alternative; for whether he refused or accepted the King's commission, it was predetermined that the Bill should pass; but he had to decide whether the independence of the House of Lords should be annihilated, or he would consent to be a party to the proposed arrangement. He had stated the case in as fair a manner as he could, and he hoped to the satisfaction of those most disposed to find fault with the Duke of Wellington's consistency. His Grace adopted the noble course of not deserting the country in the hour of need; and he used every effort to save the House of Lords, finding that he was compelled to concur in passing the Bill. Posterity would judge whether his Grace was right or wrong in offering to make a sacrifice of himself and of his personal opinions, with the view of preventing what was obviously a double evil. He declared that he disapproved of the Reform of the House of Commons; but being under no circumstances able to prevent that Reform, he would have accepted office to save the independence of the other branch of the Legislature. He fully appreciated the motives that had induced his right hon. friend, the member for Tam worth, to decline being a party to such a proceeding; the situation in which he stood with regard to the Reform of Parliament was different from that of the Duke of Wellington—he had made more decided and solemn protestations on the subject of the Reform Bill—he had declared that no circumstances should ever induce him to bring such a Bill into the House of Commons, and considering his position in the House—it 1083 being certain that he must be the leader of the Ministerial party—he never could consent to what might be looked upon as a shuffling manœuvre, to deputing another person, either in or out of the Cabinet, to bring the Bill before the House. It was a solemn pledge repeated more than once; and not only for the consistency of his right hon. friend, but for the advantage that the public might derive hereafter from his services, he deemed it right to decline being a member of the new Administration, although he professed himself willing to give every support that he could to such a Government. Unlike the Duke of Wellington, he had not a high military reputation to fall back upon; he would have been exposed to the hatred of one party, who would look on him as the cause of their loss of office, to the envy of another, and to the misunderstanding of those who would not be able to take a correct view of the difficult position in which he had been placed. Under these circumstances his right hon. friend might have been useless to the cause he wished to serve; and, much as he lamented the decision to which his right hon. friend had come, he was fully justified in the course he had adopted. The King of England, as he had before stated, could do no wrong: his Ministers were alone responsible. The King was bound by no Letter written by that Minister or this Secretary. Ministers had attempted that which he (Sir Richard Vyvyan) had no hesitation in saying was an act of treason—for having attempted that which, in another reign, formed a subject of impeachment. The act of Ministers in that reign to which he had made allusion, was of a minor description, compared with the attempt of the present Ministers. The latter had, with one blow, recommended the overpowering of one of the branches of the Legislature, merely because a particular clause in a Bill had been postponed, contrary to the wishes of the Administration. He was quite certain that when these extraordinary transactions were fully developed and calmly reasoned upon, the conduct of the King to preserve the House of Peers would be highly esteemed. He had no apprehensions as to the results of a general election, had such a course been recommended, and he believed, that if an election had taken place, and the question raised in the country as to the determination of the King not to create Peers, his name would 1084 have been found as potent as it was last year.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, that the machinery of the Administration had disclosed some latent movements which were before unknown. Upon these the country would now have an opportunity of forming a judgment. He could not but complain of the speeches made in that House by the hon. members for Middlesex, Kerry, Calne, and Northumberland. Had the House forgotten the language used by those hon. Gentlemen, in which their sentiments were couched? Had the House forgotten the spirit in which these sentiments had been uttered? It was not for him to say what the motives of these hon. Gentlemen might be. Their motives could only be known "to the Searcher of all hearts." But he would ask, what was the effect of those speeches, conveying the sentiments to which he had adverted? He could pat no other construction upon the language than that of showing the people that the House of Commons was itself the head of all Reform. But he would now, with permission of the House, refer to what had transpired out of doors (and quote the language attributed to the hon. member for Middlesex by means of the newspapers, for he had no other authority), at a meeting recently held in one of the metropolitan districts. If Members of that House set such an example to the people, it was no surprise to find the people imitating it. The language of Parliament would not allow him to designate what he thought of such sentiments, so expressed. The hon. member for Middlesex asked at the meeting, after alluding to the introduction of troops in the metropolis, "whether the people of this country would suffer themselves to be deprived of their freedom, and branded as slaves?" This was the language of an incendiary. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to ask the people, "whether they would bend their necks to the yoke which was apparently prepared for them?" The hon. member for Middlesex told the people that 150 persons were opposed to the people, whom he described as being a miserable faction. This was language which could not be misunderstood. Then the conduct towards an Illustrious Personage of the other sex, on the part of the meeting, was odious. They gave "three groans for the Queen." Surely this was a course of proceeding which no man, having the feelings 1085 of a man and a Christian, would be envious of partaking in. Was this the way taken to support his Majesty's Government? But if Members of that House used such language at the meetings which had taken place, it was no surprise to find the people acting so shamefully. The hon. and learned Gentleman, whom he did not then see in his place, had given some advice to a meeting which he had attended. He had told them how they might assist the Ministry. It was painful to him to take this course, but he felt it his duty. The language used at the meetings in the country was such as no man would approve of. It was the language of the incendiary and the demagogue, and when the character and agency of this power were taken into consideration, it would be found one day too strong for its master: the brickbat and the missile would teach, ere long, a practical lesson to that effect.
Mr. Humethought that the hon. Member had shown a considerable degree of irritation throughout his speech, which warped his judgment. The complaint of the hon. Gentleman resolved itself into two parts—language spoken in that House, and language uttered by certain Members out of doors. The hon. Member ought at once to have taken down the words which he had uttered, if he considered them of so highly objectionable a nature. He would, however, say, that he had never uttered in that House, nor out of it, sentiments which he shrunk from: and he would challenge any hon. Member to state, if he could, any sentiment that he had made use of in the course of the debates upon this matter, which was unconstitutional. These sentiments might not be palatable to the hon. Gentleman, but he would maintain that they were perfectly constitutional, and such as had been again and again echoed in that House. He threw back with indignation the insinuations of the hon. Member. Any sentiment that he had uttered within the last ten days he was ready to defend, for he had not spoken in anger, but premeditatedly. The hon. Member had asked what was the character of those meetings? He would tell him that their character was that of peace, order, and unanimity. He had certainly stated that it might be a proper course for that House to pursue to stop the Supplies; but was that revolutionary? He would maintain that it was 1086 constitutional, and however he might regret the necessity for such a course, yet circumstances might happen which would render it proper. If the hon. Member had looked to the meetings held at Newcastle and other places, he would find that much stronger language had there been used than any which fell from him. The hon. Member had talked of demagogues and incendiaries; but who, he would ask, were the incendiaries? Those who drove the people to madness by their obstinacy, or those who sought to remove the cause of the irritation which existed in the public mind? He would retort on the hon. Member, and those who adopted the same line of conduct that he pursued, the term incendiaries. For his own part, he gloried in the late meetings, for he gloried in seeing the country united in sentiment upon this question, and calling upon their Representatives, if such an Administration as was threatened should be inflicted on the country, to stop the Supplies. The people had carried their object by their moral force; and if any one thing could be more ungrateful than another to the feelings of the hon. Member, and of the other opponents of Reform, it must be their bitter disappointment at finding that the people were not to be goaded into riot and outrage. The people, however, would use only their reason and their judgment, and had shown that they were worthy of their rights, and the means they had taken to obtain them. With respect to what had been said about the expressions he had used at the meeting, he would just say, that he had been informed, while at the meeting, that troops were coming towards the metropolis, and, coupling this with the supposed fact that the Duke of Wellington was Minister, it was not very surprising that he should have inferred as he did, and that he should have said, that the people of England never would submit to be slaves, which they would be in all respects if they submitted to a military Government. He would always act upon the sentiments which he then professed, and he hoped that he should live and die a free man. He had also alluded to the consequences to Europe of the change in the Administration, and he believed he had good reason to congratulate all Europe upon the turn which events had just taken—for Europe was looking to England, and if the latter submitted to a military Government, the hopes of free- 1087 dom in France, Belgium, and other countries, would be materially depressed. He had reason, therefore, to congratulate the whole civilized world that the yoke which threatened them had been thrown off. England for the last century had been under the dominion of a monopolizing oligarchy, and it now appeared that though the King was anxious to comply with the wishes of the people, yet he was dictated to by individuals who looked only to their own advantage. The hon. Member might think as he pleased about the Reform Bill, but the concession of it would cause the King to live in the hearts of his subjects, and he trusted the latter would soon have the happiness of seeing it become the law of the land.
§ Mr. George Bankessaid, he agreed in one thing, and in one thing only, which had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Hume), and that was, that his reading of history had been of very little use to him. That hon. Member had talked of slavery; but no slavery could be more base than that of truckling to mob popularity as the basis of any Government. That hon. Member had become a prophet, but he also took care to insure his own predictions, without any regard to the fairness of the means. That hon. Member had shrunk from explaining or apologizing for his improper allusion to the Queen, who was this day, he begged to tell the hon. Member, most grossly insulted in her carriage. If the Tory party could be gratified at the commission of outrages, as the hon. Member had stated, then, indeed, they need only allude to the outrage of that day, and to another which was recently offered to a Bishop in his pulpit. In the late debates in that House, the most exciting language had been used, and the result was, that the speakers at the different public meetings had followed the bad example. His gallant friend had been asked why he had not risen before, when he heard revolutionary language made use of in that House, and the answer was, that he had repeatedly done so, although he had not been able to obtain a hearing. His gallant friend had also risen, a few evenings back, to repel the foul charges which had been made against two brothers of the King, and also when the right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Burdett) had gone out of his way to malign one of the Judges of the land, who had been sent for by his Sovereign in a moment of greater peril than perhaps 1088 any other Sovereign of this country had been exposed to before. In fact, the political conduct of the Government was dangerous to the country, and the cruelty with which they treated their gracious Master was happily hitherto without either parallel or example. Many charges had been made against the Duke of Wellington for changing his opinions; and it was also sought to compare the mode of his resignation with that of the present Ministers. As to the charges they were unfounded; and as to the resignation, it bore no analogy to that of the present Ministers. The Duke of Wellington did not go to his Sovereign with a resignation in one hand, and a threat in the other. The Duke of Wellington did not threaten to dissolve the Parliament. The Duke of Wellington was called upon by that House to resign, and did not the present Secretary-at-War ask his (Mr. Bankes's) right 'hon. friend (Sir Robert Peel) when the Ministers would resign? The then Opposition Members said, that the fires which had raged could not be put out, nor the peace of the country secured, if the Duke of Wellington did not resign. The noble Duke did resign, and the Special Commissions being sent down were the only fulfilment of the prophecies which were uttered in favour of the present Government. In October last, when the Reform Bill was lost in the House of Lords, by a majority of forty-one, he had stated that the majority would have been greater, but for the creation of Peers who had supported the question, and was proceeding a little further when he was called to order by the noble member for Devonshire, who said, that such allusions to the conduct of the Peers could not be permitted in that House. And yet were not the Anti-reform Peers loaded with the grossest epithets, both in and out of that House? No one could doubt the prerogative of the King to create Peers for the good of his people; but the question here was, should the King be forced to create Peers against his will? The Ministers knew the embarrassment in which their gracious Master was placed, and yet they forced him to agree to a creation of Peers. If, as was stated, any troops had been assembled about the metropolis, it could neither be by the act, nor by the contrivance, of the Duke of Wellington. This was, perhaps, a new piece of history for the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) who, he hoped, when ad- 1089 dressing the people for the future, would use the words of truth. That the hon. Member had some power over the people was true, but his abuse of that power was nothing short of the grossest tyranny
§ Lord Althorpwould not be induced to imitate the tone and temper of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, nor would he occupy the House by repelling the attacks of the hon. Gentleman in a manner corresponding to that in which they had been made. He would only say this, that whenever the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers, and the advice which they had given to his Majesty, should come before the House in a regular and proper form, he should be prepared to give what he deemed satisfactory explanations of his own conduct, and to vindicate the conduct of his colleagues so as to place it above reproach. With respect to what the hon. Gentleman had said respecting the resignation of his Majesty's Ministers, he must confess that he was not able to understand the constitutional doctrine of the hon. Gentleman. With respect to the creation of Peers, and the resignation of the Ministry, of which he had had the honour to be a member, all that he should then be induced to say was, that in anything which that Administration had done, they did not intend to menace or threaten any party whatever.
§ Lord Stormonthoped that some of the hon. Members opposite would inform him by whose authority the recent movement of troops had taken place. In asking that question, however, he wished it to be understood that he was not disposed to disapprove of any measures which it had been found necessary to adopt for the preservation of the public peace. He would take this opportunity of giving notice, that on Monday he would call the attention of Ministers and the Attorney General, to certain publications of a libellous and treasonable character, with the view of obtaining from them a declaration of the course which they intended to pursue respecting those publications, and whether they would allow the King and the Queen, whose person ought to be sacred—first, on account of her station; and, secondly, because she was a woman, to be treated in the contumelious, insulting, wicked, and treasonable manner in which they had been treated by the newspapers, or whether they meant to institute actions against the proprietors of those publications?
Mr. Lamb, in answer to the hon. Member's first question, said, that he felt no hesitation in declaring that there had been no movement of troops except under the sanction of Ministers. With respect to the noble Lord's second question, if, as he supposed, it referred to what had taken place since Ministers had tendered their resignations, he must state, that they did not feel themselves in a situation to commence prosecutions against any writers. They thought that was a task which might properly be left to those who would have succeeded them. He really did not know to what publications the noble Lord alluded; but it was a matter of consideration for any Government, whether it was prudent to institute prosecutions against publications which would thereby acquire a weight and authority which they had not previously possessed. If the noble Lord's description of the publications were correct, they might safely be left to the contempt of the people, who, he hoped, were now satisfied.
§ Mr. Trevorsaid, that the hon. member for Middlesex had held the King and Queen up to obloquy at public meetings. He did not believe that any instance could be pointed out in the pages of history, of Ministers submitting to their Sovereign the alternative of accepting their resignation, or of making fifty, sixty, or a larger number of Peers, to carry a particular measure. He was not ashamed of uttering these sentiments, and he trusted he might long have an opportunity of repeating them in this House. The hon. member for Middlesex had professed somewhat ostentatiously his determination to live and die a freeman. God forbid that every Englishman should not be ready to adopt that sentiment. But he would ask the hon. Member to point out, in his intimate acquaintance with the history of the country for the last 100 years the period at which Englishmen had been slaves. He could not refrain from expressing his indignation when he heard such sentiments as those which were said to have been uttered by the hon. member for Middlesex. [Mr. Hume intimated his avowal of the sentiments referred to.] The hon. Member admitted all the charges that had been brought against him, and he, as a Member of a British House of Commons, blushed to hear such an admission. He would rather be torn to pieces limb from 1091 limb by the rabble of London, than avow sentiments which he considered as disgraceful as they were unmanly.
§ Mr. ShawThere is one observation of the hon. member for Middlesex, that has not yet been adverted to by any other Member, and upon which I cannot help offering a remark; it was that in which he alluded to the recent excitement, and congratulated the country that during the period of it no breach of the peace had taken place. Now I would ask the hon. Member, whether the gratification he has expressed arises from the mere circumstance of the arrangements having resulted in the accomplishment of his wishes, by the return of the late Ministers to office, or would he have been equally anxious for the maintenance of the public peace and quiet of the country had the result been otherwise? And if the latter be the case, the hon. Member must allow me to say, that the object and the tendency of the language he has used here and elsewhere, are widely different. I cannot, Sir, sit down upon this important occasion, without expressing my humble opinion, that the Duke of Wellington has entitled himself to the deep and lasting gratitude of the country, by his magnanimous though unavailing effort, in the late trying emergency, to rescue the King from the embarrassing and dangerous position in which his Ministers had placed him; end can there be in or out of this House a man of candour, of fairness, or of truth, uninfluenced by political hostility to that noble Duke, who seriously believes that he could have been induced by any private or personal motive to accept office at the present crisis? The question of a Reform of this House of Parliament is absolutely as nothing compared with the question which at the moment the noble Duke was called upon to act, presented itself to the mind of that great man—for it was no less than this, whether the other two estates of the realm were to be overborne by the pledged and clamorous will of this House—whether that democratic torrent which now threatens to desolate the whole country, was at once to deluge the House of Lords, and sap the foundations of the Throne—and a haughty Minister buoyed upon its deceitful surface was to dictate to his Sovereign a surrender of his own independence, by becoming the unwilling instrument to sacrifice the independence, destroy the functions, and annihilate the existence (at 1092 least for any useful purpose) of the other branch of the Legislature. Contemporaneously with this, we find that portion of the Press supposed to be the support, and to speak the sentiments, of his Majesty's Ministers, denouncing the sacred person of the King, and contemptuously boasting that although his Majesty had again sent for Earl Grey, that noble Earl did not condescend to obey his summons till the following day—persons, too, of whom better things should be expected, desecrating their rank and station in society, by holding forth at public meetings, our gracious Monarch as a deserter, and an object of scorn and contempt to his people, because, forsooth, he ventured to exercise his prerogative in a point in which above all others, it is unquestionable—the choice of his Ministers. But, Sir, it is in vain to think this state of things can last—let us not deceive ourselves, but manfully meet the question at once—are we to have a monarchy or a republic? For my own part, I protest I would prefer a republic in name to a worse than republic in reality. Nay; rather would I have an honest, open, and professed democracy, than that, under the guise of our ancient and venerated Constitution, the Monarch and hereditary Peers of this once proud and envied nation should be made the degraded tools of their own destruction—the despised engines of a mob tyranny. Sir, the hon. member for Middlesex vaunts of British freedom; I tell him that I am as jealous as he can be of our common birthright as British subjects—to live and die freemen—but I tell him further that while as such he only spurns at military thraldom, I will never bend my neck willingly to the yoke of either military or democratic despotism.
§ Colonel Sibthorpexpressed his regret, that the events of the last fortnight had brought the Ministry back to their places. One advantage, however, would result from it, that before long the country would be convinced, that the Ministers were totally inefficient, and incompetent to conduct the affairs of this nation. He must complain that proper explanation had not been given to the House as to the mode in which Ministers proposed to carry the Reform Bill. This Reform Bill was to be a panacea; but if it were brought into operation, which he trusted it would not be, the acts of Ministers would be fairly judged and duly rewarded.
Lord Newarkwould not have trespassed 1093 on the attention of the House, had he not held it to be the duty of every independent Member to declare his sentiments at a time like the present. He had supported Ministers on the Reform question from sincere conviction, and he had not hesitated to oppose them where he conceived them to be in the wrong. Without any mixture of party feeling, he could say that he deeply deplored the circumstances which had lately occurred. He must regret that this House should have found itself compelled to tender, in vindication of its honour and consistency, an Address to the Sovereign. He hoped, however, that this proceeding would soon be forgotten, and if referred to, that it would be mentioned merely as matter of history. With regard to the compromise that had been made by certain persons on the subject of Reform, it reminded him of the words of the poet, which he would venture to quote:—
Behold the hall where Chiefs were late convened,O dome displeasing unto British eye!With diadem hight Fool's Cap, lo! a fiend,A little fiend, that laughs incessantly,There sits in parchment to be array'd, and byHis side is hung a seal and sable scroll,Where blazoned glow names known to chivalry,And sundry signatures adorn the scroll,Whereat the urchin points, and laughs with all hissoul!Convention is the dwarfish demon styl'dThat foil'd the Knights in Marialva's dome:Of brains (if brains they had) he them beguil'd,And turn'd a nation's early joy to gloom!For Chiefs like these in vain may laurels bloom.The people were for the speedy adjustment of the question, and had hitherto preserved tranquillity only from the conviction they entertained that that House was determined to do its duty.
§ Lord William Lennoxsaid, at this momentous crisis, when the people looked with confidence only to the House of Commons to support their rights and liberties, he felt it to be the imperative duty of every individual, fearlessly and firmly to avow his sentiments. He would not have obtruded upon the House had he not been disappointed on this evening in presenting a petition from a most numerous and respectable body of the inhabitants of King's Lynn, who expressed their satisfaction at the recall of his. In the prayer of the petition he entirely concurred, and until he had an opportunity of presenting it, he would merely confine 1094 himself to saying, that to the unmutilated Bill of Reform he would continue to give his most uncompromising support.
§ Conversation dropped.