HC Deb 26 February 1835 vol 26 cc325-410

The Order of the Day for the resumption of the Adjourned Debate on the Address, having been read,

Mr. Mullins

felt himself called upon, in the name of his constituents, to express in the strongest language his dissatisfaction with, and disapprobation of, the course of conduct of the right hon. Baronet, and his colleagues, since he had assumed the Seals of office. He had listened with all the attention which he could command to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, and to the speeches of those hon. Members who had followed on the same side, and he had endeavoured in vain to discover whether there was any one good solid reason for the dismissal of the late Ministers; and he must say, that he had not heard one single argument, one single syllable in the shape of a solid reason, why such a recommendation should have been given to his Majesty, or why the House of Commons, which had supported the anxious desires of the British Empire generally, should have been dissolved. He could show good reasons, why that Parliament should not have been dissolved, and why the right hon. Baronet who had taken upon himself the responsibility of an act, which might involve that House in collision with the other House, which every honest man had an interest in avoiding, should be made answerable for it. The reason alleged for the breaking up of the late Cabinet was, that Lord Melbourne had informed his Majesty that he could no longer carry on the Government. Now the fact was, that Lord Melbourne was not only ready but anxious to carry on the Government, provided the reforms were made in our institutions which the abuses that had crept into them rendered necessary. Lord Melbourne, he repeated, was obliged to resign his office, though he had no disposition to do so; but, because a disposition had been exhibited in a certain quarter, to change those Ministers in whom his Majesty had placed confidence for more than four years. The right hon. Baronet in coming to the decision to dissolve a House of Commons which had given so much satisfaction to the country had acted in a way which no other man who valued the peace of the country would have done. A new Parliament was assembled; and now let him ask the right hon. Baronet whether it spoke the public opinion more satisfactorily in his estimation than that which he had dissolved. With all the powers which Government could bring to its aid,—with all the powers which it had used to the utmost at the last election, Government had not succeeded in procuring for itself and its measures a majority in the House of Commons. That had been proved in a manner which nobody could contradict, on the late election of Speaker, and would be proved still more clearly on the division on the Address, which would take place that night. There were other divisions on topics of greater importance, which would take place within a few days, and the majority would go on increasing on the side of the people, so as to prove to demonstration that there had been no revolution in the popular feeling. Did the right hon. Baronet suppose that where the opinions of the House, and of the people acting in concert with the House, had been expressed so unequivocally as they had recently been, he would be able to lead the House and propose measures which would suit the prevailing opinions of the majority of the House? If they looked to the declarations of the right hon. Baronet, not since Parliament met, but on every occasion when he had had the means of addressing the public, they would find that, whatever his promises had been, he could not be a sincere friend to the principles which he had been obliged to avow. The right hon. Baronet and his colleagues were ashamed of their old name of Tories, and had, in consequence, along with their supporters, addressed their constituents as Reformers, and proclaimed their desire of proposing measures in accordance with the spirit of the Reform Bill, which they had bitterly and perseveringly opposed. Being Reformers, as they now called themselves, were they such Reformers as the country was at present prepared to adopt? Reformers though they might be, he was certain that they were not ready to bring forward those measures which the country now so earnestly desired. What, he would ask, was the language of the speech which the right hon. Baronet had put into the King's mouth? What did it promise? What measures of Reform did it develope! He could not perceive in it one shadow of a promise of Reform, in the spirit of that great and important measure which had been passed during the Administration of Earl Grey. Let them look at the words of the right hon. Baronet, let them look at the declaration which he had published to his constituents at Tamworth, and at the speech which he had subsequently made to them at his election dinner. Had he not told them on both occasions, that it was his deliberate and well-matured determination to adhere to the principles which had guided him all along in his political career? Had there, in point of fact, been any change? Did the right hon. Baronet intend to move on with the spirit of the times? Was he ready to act now, as he had acted once before, on the principle of expediency, to bend before the power which he could not control—in a word, to yield to what he had denounced the pressure from without? Quite the reverse. The right hon. Baronet had done nothing of the sort. He had declared his opinions to be unaltered, and his colleagues had also done the same. What course had the right hon. Baronet and his colleagues promised to take with respect to the Reform of our Municipal institutions? What was it that his Majesty's Speech declared? The House had been told that a Commission had been appointed to inquire into those institutions, but it had not been told what course Government would pursue when the Report of that Commission was laid on the Table. It was easy for Government to place a Report upon the Table of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords: but what Parliament had to attend to most was the measures to be founded upon such Report. It was evident from what had recently occurred that there was on the part of the Ministers a desire to convey to the country a notion that Ministers would be friendly to the measures which might be recommended by the Commissioners in their Report. But, if such were the disposition of the right hon. Baronet, it was quite evident that there was no cordiality on the subject between the right hon. Baronet and his colleagues in another place. Precautions had been taken elsewhere to show, that there was no intention on the part of the Government to introduce measures in accordance with the public wish; and he would take the liberty of reading to the House a few words from the declaration, which had been there made. The Lord Chancellor had said, "that they were going to bring in a measure founded on the Report of the Commissioners of the Corporation Inquiry: he did not find any statement to that effect in his Majesty's Speech. What he found there in relation to that matter was to the effect that a Commission had been appointed for the purpose of conducting an inquiry into the state of Municipal Corporations; that they had not yet made their Report, but that there was reason to believe it would soon be ready, and that when it was, it would be laid before Parliament. What would be done with the said Report when it came to be laid before Parliament must depend on the nature of the evidence, on the Report founded on that evidence, and not on that alone, but on other circumstances" (he should like to know what those circumstances were); "he did not feel himself called on to give any pledge on the subject; on the contrary, he would say that a Commission having been appointed for inquiry, till that inquiry was concluded, and the Report made, it was premature to say, what would be done. The noble and learned Lord said, that they had adopted that Commission, and this he was willing to concede; but he must also declare, that some of the powers of the Commission in the extent to which they were carried were illegal. The Commission exercised an authority in the name of the King which the Crown did not in fact possess. It was empowered to inquire into the nature of the property of Corporations, to call witnesses, to examine them on oath, and to require them to produce all deeds, titles, and writings relating to their property. He averred that to be illegal; in fact, it was unknown to the Con- stitution of the country." Now, alter such a declaration could any man of common sense suppose that there was any intention on the part of the right hon. Baronet and his colleagues to introduce a searching measure, or indeed any measure at all, for the Reform of our Municipal Institutions? Where, then, were the right hon. Baronet's promises of Reform? It was easy for any men to call themselves Reformers; but it was by their acts, and not by their words, that the Representatives of the people ought to try the Reformers in the present Ministry. With reference to the subject of Irish tithes, he would ask, whether a single word had dropped from the right hon. Baronet which could lead them to believe that there was any intention on his part to bring forward a measure which was likely to remedy the grievances of the Irish people, so far as tithe was concerned? There was nothing in the Address which could justify them in believing that any such intention existed, nothing of the sort in any of the speeches which had been delivered in that House. Where had Reform been promised on that score? Did the right hon. Baronet mean to controvert doctrines which he had formerly expressed upon this subject? Would he again act on the principle of expediency, and would he now introduce on this subject a measure as extensive as benevolent, and as satisfactory to the people of Ireland as that introduced in the last Session by the late right hon. Secretary for Ireland? if the right hon. Baronet supposed that a less extensive measure than that would give satisfaction to the people of Ireland, he was indeed grievously mistaken. If the right hon. Baronet meant to act fairly by the House, let him, instead of cloaking his intentions under the unintelligible verbiage of a King's Speech, state unequivocally, and without disguise, what his intentions were respecting the system of tithes, which now met with universal execration in Ireland. Let him do the same with respect to the Reforms he intended to make in our Municipal Corporations. Let him declare his intentions distinctly respecting the Dissenters, and say whether he intended to go in that respect as far as the noble Member for Devonshire, and as that Government which had been lately displaced without a particle of cause. They had a right to demand that information from the right hon. Baronet, and without giving it the right hon. Baronet had no right to ask for the support of the majority on his Address, and hon. Gentlemen, who thought as he did, had a right to support the Amendment upon it. They supported that Amendment to show that there was a firm phalanx in that House determined to support the rights of the people, and to give to the country those Reforms, which, while they were wholesome, temperate, and salutary, would give universal satisfaction. They had a right to express their opinions to his Majesty, even though those opinions were in direct opposition to those contained in his Majesty's Speech; they had a right to express them decidedly and constitutionally, and he hoped that the Amendment to the Address which embodied the important changes which the country required, would be laid before his Majesty, and that his Majesty, acting on the advice of his faithful Commons, would act with that deference to their advice which had been displayed on other occasions. It was incumbent upon the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government to show, that he had acted honestly and honourably by the country in proceeding as he had done at the hazard of destroying the peace and tranquillity which he had admitted prevailed in the country during the Government of Earl Grey and Lord Melbourne by holding out promises which it was never intended to fulfil.

Mr. Finch

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had expended some time in endeavouring to make out that the late dissolution in Parliament was unjustifiable, and that the right hon. Baronet had failed to justify his conduct in advising his Majesty to adopt that step. It was undoubtedly the opinion of hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House that the right of dissolving the Parliament was a Constitutional right, wisely deposited in the hands of the Crown. There it ought to be inviolate, but, at the same time, it must be admitted that under a limited Monarchy this prerogative must be exercised with all due respect for public opinion. Looking at the late dissolution with these opinions, still he was sure that the Government could boldly meet any charge which upon this subject might be brought against them. He might be imperfectly acquainted with the history of his country, but as far as his, knowledge extended he knew no instance in which the prerogative of the Crown had been so wisely exercised as in the late dissolution. They had heard much of the principles of Reform from those who contended that they should be acted upon, and who asserted, because those principles guided not the conduct of the Members of the present Administration, no confidence could be placed in them, and no expectation could be entertained of their services benefiting the country. But never had there been any attempt to define the meaning of those vaunted principles. If, however, he understood the principles of the Reform Bill they merely went, so far as the Constitution of the country was concerned, to correct abuses which had crept in, and to effect such improvements as our Constitution admitted of. With respect to the application of those principles, so far as regarded other institutions, they simply signified that all existing abuses should be corrected, and all possible meliorations effected. It was said that the present Government would not introduce measures of safe and salutary Reform. How that could be seriously declared he could not divine; but this he knew, that the addresses of the right hon. Baronet must satisfy every reasonable man, every man of common sense, that he had taken up the spirit of Reform. That it was his intention to bring forward measures for the redress of admitted grievances was his declaration to a free and intelligent people, who were prepared to avenge themselves if he deceived them. He stated that he was ready to go on in the spirit of Reform, to remove every glaring abuse, and to adopt every improvement of which the Constitution was susceptible. But hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the house said they could not intrust him with their confidence. They said they doubted the sincerity of his repeated declarations, and for that alleged reason were they about to vote against the Address to his Majesty's Speech. How curious was it, that hon. Gentlemen who were not generally deficient in perspicuity were on this occasion so blind to their own interests. How singular that they should refuse what had hitherto been usual—a fair and impartial trial. How singular they did not see, that if the right hon. Baronet falsified his promises nothing would sooner bring them into power, and there establish them on a basis from which it would be impossible to remove them. How, again could hon. Members make charges of inconsistency, and yet act with such an utter disregard of consistency? The Amendment, which was framed to unite all parties in its support, appeared to him of a nature which, if consistency were regarded, must preclude many hon. Members from voting for it. how could the hon. and learned Member for Dublin give it his support? How could he act with Members of the late Government, which he had so vehemently opposed, and concur with them in supporting an Amendment which deeply regretted the dismissal of lord Melbourne's Government? Perhaps he thought that, by subverting the existing Administration he would cause the accession to power of a part of lord Melbourne's Government with which he and his friends could unite. If he were determined to act with the Members of the late Government he must indeed wade through a deep mire of inconsistency and dereliction of principle. What had he said of lord Melbourne's Administration in a letter tranquilly written at Derrynane Abbey? What had he said of that Parliament the dissolution of which was regretted, and what attention had that Parliament paid to his notable appeals and remonstrances? The first act of that Parliament was to approve of an Address which the hon. and learned Member designated as "a brutal and bloody Address." Let them call to mind the words in which he had stigmatized that Address. He said, "it appears to me impossible to agree in that Address. I think it is a brutal and bloody Address. It is exactly fitted for exciting a civil war. 'Tis just such an Address as was sent to America. It is bloody, brutal, and unconstitutional. I can readily conceive the bitter laugh of scorn with which the Speech and the Address will be read in my country. It will be considered there as a declaration of civil war." Such were the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman on the Address first agreed to by the first reformed Parliament—that Parliament the dissolution of which the Amendment so pathetically lamented. What was the majority by which that Address was carried? 428 to 40, or, in other words, ten to one. Was, then, the hon. and learned Member prepared to sanction an amendment which regretted the dissolution of a Parliament so large a majority of which had assented to a bloody, brutal, and unconstitutional Address, which tended to produce a civil war? Shortly after that Address the Coercion Bill was introduced, and what then was his language? "Lord Althorp," he said, "has come forward to assassinate the Constitution. He takes away the Trial by Jury—he takes away personal freedom. There was a time when there was a dawn of hope for Ireland. It was when the present Parliament was assembled. The hope is gone. You crush us by an act of despotism." Notwithstanding this declaration, notwithstanding his powers of eloquence, he was left in a minority. He was defeated by a majority of 466 to 89, or in other words five to one. Was the hon. Member prepared to vote for an Amendment which praised a Parliament that had deprived Ireland of personal freedom? In the next Session of Parliament how was the hon. and learned Gentleman singled out and designated in his Majesty's Speech? As the disturber of the peace of Ireland. The Address on that Speech was carried by a large majority of that House. The hon. and learned Gentleman soon after brought forward a motion for the repeal of the Legislative Union. But why did he so, if the interests and welfare of Ireland were attended to by that House of Commons, the dissolution of which, if he supported the present Amendment, he must acknowledge to regret. But the hon. and learned Gentleman obtained none of his wishes in the late House on this subject. He must have considered that they did not mean to give justice to Ireland, otherwise, why should he have moved for a Repeal of the Union? An extraordinary change, it appeared, had taken place in his mind with respect to the late House of Commons. His speech on the motion alluded to was one of great eloquence and research, and lasted for five hours; and it was seconded by the greater portion of his Irish colleagues, and by many of his political Friends, Members for places in this country; and yet that motion was rejected by a majority of five to one. It was, therefore, extremely inconsistent on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to regret the dissolution of the late Parliament, since his motion proved that he considered that Parliament had not at heart the welfare or prosperity of Ireland. With respect to that dissolution he was free to admit, that it ought not to have been had recourse unless it could be supported by weighty reasons; nor ought, without such reasons Ministers to be dismissed, since it was not fair to call upon high Officers of State to take Office if, afterwards, they were liable to be unceremoniously rejected. He considered that the right hon. Baronet, who had lately accepted the Premiership was in some degree responsible for the dismissal of the late Ministers. He contended however, that the late Administration had had a fair trial, and that the country condemned their opinions and their measures. All might recollect that in his Majesty's Speech at the opening of last Session a strong and not very flattering allusion was made to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Afterwards, in the course of the Session, a measure was brought in for the commutation of tithes in Ireland, but the principle of that measure was that tithes should still be applied to Church purposes. That principle did not satisfy the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and the consequence was, that it led to the memorable coalition between the hon. and learned Member and certain individuals forming part of the late Administration. That coalition brought about the resignation of Lords Althorp and Grey. Previously a Report on the state of Ireland was requested from the Viceroy of that country, and in that Report prædial disturbances and resistance to tithes were chiefly attributed to political agitation. Another letter was then despatched to the Lord Lieutenant, requiring a different Report, which was to be agreeable to the wishes of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. When this transaction was discovered and pointed out in Parliament Lord Althorp resigned, and upon that resignation Earl Grey thought fit to tender his resignation also; and in doing so, the noble Earl declared in the other House that if Lord Althorp ceased to form part of the then Administration it would be impossible for it to carry on the Government of the country. Lord Melbourne's Administration had been tried, but it now appeared that it was acquitted by the hon. And learned Member. He repeated that a deliberate declaration had been made in the face of Parliament and the country that if it Lord Althorp ceased to lead the Opposition in that House Lord Melbourne could not carry on the Government of the country. The Sovereign was therefore fully justified in what be had done; and though some responsibility rested on the present Chancellor of the Exchequer it was very light, They were told that the principle upon which any Administration could exist was a well-regulated distribution of the property of the Irish Church; and a noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) had endeavoured to prove the unanimity of the late Cabinet upon the subject. But he had proved the reverse, since there was a tangible difference upon this point between the opinions of Mr. Spring Rice, the Marquess of Lansdowne, Lord Brougham, and other Members of the late Cabinet. What distribution did one party propose? Why, taking away the surplus, and giving it to the Roman Catholics. It was proved that the opinions of Mr. Spring Rice and the Marquess of Lansdowne were, that after the wants of the Established Church and its ministers were provided for, and if any surplus should remain, it should be applied to the education of the other inhabitants of the country, whether Catholic or Protestant. If any part of that surplus was applied to the education of the Catholics was not that clearly applying it to Catholic purposes? Now, it ought to be borne in mind that the Sovereign, in the Coronation Oath, had sworn to maintain the rights and privileges of the Church, and in those rights and privileges were included the property of the Church. It was, therefore, evident that if the property of the Irish Church should be infringed upon, there would be a violation of the Coronation Oath. It was not upon this ground alone, nor upon the conduct of the late Government respecting the Irish Tithe Bill, nor upon account of what they did respecting the Coercion Bill, but there was also their opinions respecting the revenues of the Church — opinions at variance with the national faith and the Coronation Oath—that made him oppose them. Their opinions upon these subjects at a time such as the present more than justified their dismissal. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be rejected, and he was surprised that the noble Lord who moved it could lend himself to anything so vapid and so vague. He would in conclusion tell the hon. and learned Member for Dublin that if he and his sixty votes should support an Amendment which expressed regret at the dissolution of the late Government he would be guilty of the grossest piece of inconsistency ever heard before.

Mr. Grantley Berkeley

regretted the absence of the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) from his place during the few remarks which he should feel it his duty to submit to the House. If, after the dismissal of the late Ministry, who enjoyed the confidence of the country, and who were dismissed without a trial, the vote he was about to give had no other object than the dismissal of the present Ministry, it would carry with it its own justification. But he had a thousand other reasons for opposing the present Government. Their inattention to the claims of the Dissenters, their neglect of the important question of the Irish Church, would in themselves be quite sufficient to create such an opposition as would prevent the possibility of their remaining long in office. The right hon. Baronet said, that he had not given any factious opposition to the Government of Earl Grey; but it should be recollected that the right hon. Baronet must have been bound by the pressure from without to the support of measures which would have otherwise met with his opposition. For his own part, he had no objection to see the right hon. Baronet himself fill a situation for which his talents and acquirements so eminently fitted him; but looking to the class of men by whom he was surrounded, recollecting that the coadjutors of the right hon. Baronet were ever foremost in the ranks of the most Conservative Tories, he did not hesitate to say that it was impossible for any honest Reformer to give him his support. Even liberal measures would be received with suspicion from him. On no question connected with politics had he ever found so little difficulty in making up his mind as upon the present. It was his conviction that the present Ministry could not long remain in power, and he should contribute what he could to bring their reign to an end, by giving his support to the Amendment.

Sir Roger Greisley

should not be discharging his duty to his constituents if he gave a silent vote upon the present occasion. He could not help expressing his deep dissatisfaction at the very scanty and insignificant mention which had been made of the distresses of the agricultural classes; a class which had borne their injuries with more patience than any other in the community. He regretted that so little notice was taken of these distresses, because he knew, that the agricultural classes would feel deeply disappointed, and he feared that upon a future occasion, if his Majesty's Ministers had occasion to appeal to them, their neglect, it might be found, had alienated their good wishes, and they might refuse that support which they had lately so nobly given. He approved of the principle of the Address; and he trusted, upon consideration, that every possible relief would be given to the agricultural classes. With the remainder of the Address he cordially concurred, and should support it, if only to counteract what he was with regret compelled to believe was a factious opposition, promoted by individuals for the attainment of their own selfish objects.

Mr. Gillon

said, it was his intention to support the Amendment, although he could not entirely concur in the terms of it; although it wanted some of that force and vigour which at a period like the present the people had a right to expect at their hands; and although it failed in some degree to make manifest that feeling to which he intended to give expression by his vote, a feeling which he shared with the overpowering majority of his countrymen, namely, a total want of confidence in the promises or the professions of his Majesty's present advisers. When the nation beheld all the political principles of a great and powerful party suddenly abandoned—when it heard them adopting, with two exceptions, those measures which were the leading features of the policy of the late Administration, so unceremoniously dismissed—what could it think but that their conduct was a tribute of respect to the great principles of Reform, unwillingly wrung from the lips of its adversaries—a cloak adopted to suit the exigences of the time, and which, when they should once have established themselves in power, might as speedily be thrown off. He did think, notwithstanding what he believed to be the sincere declaration of the right hon. Baronet, that the provisions of the Reform Bill itself would not be safe, should his party be enabled to establish themselves in power. An appeal had lately been made to the people, and in no portion of the empire had it been more nobly responded to than in Scotland. The people of that country had by a majority of more than two to one of their Representatives, declared that they would not place their liberties at the feet of a party, the fruits of whose long system of misgovernment had been extravagance, and debt, and augmented taxation; the encouragement of despotic governments abroad, and the suppression of public liberty at home. That majority would have been yet greater, but for the use of intimidation practised by the rich and powerful against the weak; but for the use of means which tended to corrupt the principles, and degrade the moral bearing of the people. The right hon. Baronet in his powerful and eloquent address, had stated that he had, during the last two Sessions, adopted the spirit of the Reform Bill, and supported the Government by whom that Bill had been carried. In support of his position, he had referred to various measures in which he had given his vote, or expressed his opinion. It did so chance, that in every one of these, from the Irish Coercion Bill, which threw its dark shade over the first transactions of the Reformed Parliament, down to the refusal to admit the Dissenters to a participation in the benefits of the English Universities, every one of these votes had been against, not one in favour of, the popular cause. If taxes were to be repealed or commuted for the relief of the productive classes, that repeal or commutation was opposed by the right hon. Baronet. If pensions or sinecures were to be abolished, the right hon. Baronet and his party threw over them the shield of their eloquent defence. But when the rod of power and coercion was held over an unhappy and misgoverned people, their arms were stretched out to give vigour to the blow. On whatever party, therefore, these appeals might have effect, he was certain they must fall dead on his ears and those of the hon. and liberal Members with whom it was his pride to have acted; and he felt they could be accused of no inconsistency in refusing all confidence to his Majesty's present advisers. One word more on that paragraph in the Speech which refers especially to Scotland. He did not hesitate to say that if the present Ministers were unpopular in that country before, this part of the Speech would render them doubly so. The people of Scotland were far too intelligent to be deluded by the pretext of giving religious instruction to the poor. This was not the object of the proposition in his Majesty's Speech, however artfully worded that Speech might be. The real object was to degrade, to treat as nothing, the large and influential body of the Dissenters, and to augment the power, the wealth, and the influence of the dominant Church. He presumed it was intended to build more Churches, and to endow more ministers. But would it not be better, in the first place, to fill those edifices in which, from the insufficiency of ministers, or the unpopular mode of their appointment, they were now preaching to empty seats? He would refer to the case of Edinburgh; in which a cry was now raised that five more Churches must be built, while it was a fact, to which he challenged contradiction, that there were between 5,000 and 6,000 seats in the city Churches of the Establishment unoccupied. The fact was, that the Dissenters were the religious instructors of the poor, and in that city the Dissenting places of worship were full, while many of the Churches were comparatively neglected. Let English Members be on their guard. Though this part of the Speech referred apparently to Scotland alone, it affected also them and their constituents. Were they prepared to grant a sum of money, whether that was to come from a direct draft on the Consolidated Fund, or out of what were termed unappropriated tiends, at all events from funds at the disposal of this House, for the purpose of enlarging the influence of one particular sect in Scotland, without tending in any degree to advance the true interests of religion? Were they prepared for the precedent which would thus be afforded for increasing the wealth of the Established Episcopal Church of England, an intention of which significant hints had already appeared in certain quarters, and a pretext for which would not long escape the ingenuity of the Church Commissioners who had recently been appointed? He held that, by altering the mode of the appointment of ministers, by the entire and final abolition of patronage, and the bringing into the service men who should be identified with the feelings of their flocks, more good would result to the cause of religion, and the interests of the Establishment, than by building more Churches, while the present edifices were untenanted. He objected to this proposition, both as regarded its immediate results, and the dangerous precedent which might be drawn from it, and this formed an additional reason for his opposing the Address.

Major Cumming Bruce

assured the House he would not have trespassed upon their attention, had it not been for the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down, and lie should only occupy their attention for a few minutes. The hon. Member had commenced by stating that a great majority of the people of Scotland were averse to a change in the Councils of his Majesty, and that the opinion of a great majority of the people of Scotland were adverse to Sir Robert Peel obtaining that fair trial which he sought for. Now, he had much reliance upon the intelligent people of Scotland; they acknowledged the integrity of the right hon. Baronet, and of his colleagues in office, and they were, he asserted, prepared to give him that fair trial. The hon. Member was justified in his opinion to a certain degree, by the returns made to that House. But it was only fair to say, and he was sure the hon. Member would not deny the justice of the observation, that in Scotland, as elsewhere, there was a great diversity of opinion. What should be the observation made with respect to the towns in Scotland? He was ready to grant that a proportion of them was against the change; but as the Member for Southwark had introduced a curious and a new definition in political economy, "the holders of large masses of property" sanctioned the change. He appealed to Edinburgh, to Glasgow, and to those other places where it was well known that a great majority of the citizens possessing property recognised with satisfaction the late change. But, if it was the case, that large aggregate numbers were unfavourable to the change in the towns, what, he would ask, occurred in the counties of Scotland, where it was said a great majority were favourable to the policy pursued by the late Administration, or rather to the late Administration itself. With regard to the county of Haddington, the Member for which had spoken upon the first night, he would observe that that hon. Member had been returned by a very narrow majority. What, then, was the case with the great county of Perth. There it could not, at least, be contended but that a very large portion of the constituency expressed an opinion favourable to a Member of the present Administration. What was the case with Inverness, with which he had the honour of being immediately connect- ed; why his right hon. Friend who represented that county, was returned by a bare majority of seven. And it was well known to his right hon. Friend that there were walking about the streets a greater number of persons who professed Conservative principles, than was requisite to turn the scale against him, and who professed the principles of those now in office, and who would have voted against him, had they not been deterred from coming forward [Cries of "No!"]. He knew the fact to be so; he could give the numbers and the names; and he said, without the fear of contradiction, that had those persons who professed Conservative principles recorded their votes according to their known sentiments, had they not believed that the result would be different from the voting in the distant parts of the county, his right hon. Friend would not have been at the head of the poll. [Cries of "Oh, oh!] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh!" but he assured them, on his honour as a gentleman, that this was the fact. What was the case with the county of Ross? Was the majority there so very great, as to entitle any man to say that a great proportion of the country was in favour of the late, and against the present Ministry? Why, the fact was, that a majority of the constituency, he meant the landed constituency, were against the present Member, and his return was secured by the votes of certain 10l. householders. He had not the least doubt but that those electors gave to the present Member the most independent support; but he had also no doubt but that support was given from a knowledge of the personal character of the hon. Member, and not on account of his political opinions. But let them look to the result of the elections in other Scotch counties. Was the metropolitan county of Scotland to count for nothing, and its return of a Member favourable to the present Ministry? Was the opinion of the intelligent and manufacturing constituency of Stirling, to count as nothing? nor the returns of Roxburgh? nor those from the Orkney and Shetland islands? were they all to count as nothing? With those facts before them they might perceive that there was but a narrow majority for those returned favourable to the late Ministry; they might perceive, too, from those facts, that in Scotland there was a great diversity of opinion respecting the late change; and, he be- lieved, he could assure the House of this, that there was in Scotland a gradual and a growing conviction, that Government could only be carried on upon one principle, whether it was Whig or Tory (and he cared not which, for he could attach no importance to words of which it was difficult now to understand the meaning); but this he was certain of, that the opinion was increasing, that the Government of the country could not be safely or beneficially conducted but upon those Conservative principles which the right hon. Baronet had developed to that House, and which corroborated the gracious Speech of his Majesty. So much then for that unanimity in Scotland, which had been referred to by the hon. Member who had spoken last, and who went on to take exception to a paragraph in the Address; and for which paragraph he was bound to offer his grateful acknowledgments to his Majesty's Ministers, because they had thought it to be their duty to advise the introduction of that clause into his Majesty's Speech. That clause went to provide the more effectual communication of religious instruction in connexion with the Established Church in Scotland to the poorer classes. He was well convinced, that that paragraph, which showed such a regard for the interests of his country, would be received and hailed there with satisfaction. He did not speak upon this subject without having a deep knowledge of it; because, in one of the districts of the town of Inverness, which he had the honour of representing, there was no Church save the ruins of an ancient cathedral, in which to have religious worship. A subscription had been actually entered into for additional places of worship in connexion with the Established Church. Those subscriptions had not been sufficient for the end proposed, and one of his instructions from his constituents to the last Parliament was to endeavour to induce the last Ministry, as it was to endeavour to induce the present, to lend their aid to the object in view. He hailed that declaration as required by the necessity of the case—he hailed it also on account of the principle which it recognized—namely, the duty of every Christian State to provide for the religious instruction of the community as considered in reference to the interests of true religion. He had heard in the course of the debate, to which he had anxiously listened, Gentlemen on that side of the House taunted as having no common point of Union, no more in fact than those opposed to them. That was not the case with Gentlemen on his side of the House. There was one principle which united them—it was a sound Conservative principle; it was a determination to maintain the connexion between Church and State—to maintain the Protestant Church Establishment in this country, by which they conceived the real interests of true religion could be best promoted. If they looked to religion as merely connected with the interests of time, and connected with more morality—if they looked to it only as an aid to the civil Government of the country, and to maintain the peace of society—if they looked to it with no other considerations than these, and he had others beyond them—if they looked to it as that on which all the interests of man in this world and in the next were so deeply involved, then he and they must hail the resolution and the disposition to forward religion indicated in the Speech of his Majesty. But when they considered that religion not only secured the liberty of man in this world—when they looked to it as the protection of the rights and liberties of all; that it secured to the poor man the fruits of his industry—to the rich his accumulated wealth—to the nobleman, the permanency of his honours—and to princes the stability of their thrones; when they looked at it in this light then they must hail with gratification and satisfaction the Speech of his Majesty, which assured them that the interests of the true Protestant religion would occupy the serious attention of his Majesty's Government. This, then, was their main point of Union—this was their Conservative principle; it was not like the rope of sand by which they were opposed. It was not like that which upon the slightest shock fell to pieces. His Majesty's Speech, which recognized such a principle of Union, would secure from him, if there was nothing else, his cordial vote in support of the Address.

Mr. Fox Maule

would have wished to have had some experience in that House before he addressed it; and he should not so soon have offered himself to its notice, but for one or two points touched upon, and in direct personal allusion made to himself by the hon. Member who had just sat down. The funeral oration which had been pronounced over the old system of voting, as it existed in Scotland, and the very able philippic which had been indulged in against the new system, induced him to reply to those remarks. He offered himself to the notice of the House, as the Representative of a very large constituency, and, in deference to that portion of the constituency by whom he had been returned, and which he was not ashamed to acknowledge as belonging to that class who had received their franchise under the Reform Bill. It had been said by the hon. Member for the borough of Inverness, that a majority of the wealth of Scotland regarded the assumption of power by the present Ministry with satisfaction—he thought that was what the hon. Member said—that a majority of the wealth of Scotland did not regret to see Lord Melbourne's Administration dismissed.

Major Bruce

observed, that what he had, he believed, said, was, that while a proportion of the Members in Scotland were favourable to the late Administration, he believed that a majority of the property of the country was favourable to the present Administration.

Mr. Maule

believed that there was not only a majority of Members, but there was a majority of the property in the towns in favour of the Melbourne Administration. Now, before he would go further, he would put the case of the hon. Member for Inverness, and on referring to his own election, it would be found that very nearly throughout that borough, which had done him the honour of returning him, property, as it existed there, showed no such feeling as the hon. Member himself ascribed to it. He found that constituency so much divided that the hon. Member sat in that House by a more majority of four. But let them look to the whole of the boroughs of Scotland, and he might safely say, that the hon. Member was the only borough Representative in Scotland, who sat on the other side of the House. Surely from that hon. Member's own case, taken with all the other boroughs in Scotland, it must be admitted, that the majority of the property in those other boroughs was favourable to the late Administration—with regard to the counties in Scotland, in some instances, he was afraid that the constituency were obliged to follow their conscientious feelings at the risk of their temporal interests. And the county which he had the honour to represent, he would say, confirmed this observation, for the landed property of Perth were certainly adverse to his standing. But what a credit was it to that constituency—what merit had they, who, without any consideration for their own especial advantages, when they could not find in their own county one to represent their interests, they had referred to him, and returned him freely? He denied in toto, that a majority of the people of Scotland were favourable to the present Government. With respect to the observations made regarding the Established Church, and the hon. Members calling for earnest attention to the Church of Scotland, he would make but one observation, which was that, before they gave any grant to aid a particular creed, they should first fill the churches they had, and then talk of building others. He certainly could see no necessity, till they filled the churches they had already in existence, to apply to Parliament for a grant to erect more. He should not now occupy the attention of the House further, but, considering the circumstances under which he had the honour to be placed in that House, he could not but say that he had no confidence in his Majesty's Government, and should honestly oppose them upon the present occasion. Would Gentlemen say that in doing so he was giving a factious opposition? As far as he understood the nature of "a factious opposition," it was vexatiously plaguing Ministers, day after day upon every trifling question. In this case he would say it was no such thing; it was a great political question—it was a question to the decision of which the people of the country looked with anxious eyes, it was a question by which (though he trusted the Amendment would be carried), if they voted against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Yorkshire, they would be stamped in the public eye as not worthy of the character of Reformers, but as opposed to all constitutional amendment. With respect to the dissolution of the late Government, the single circumstance of Lord Althorp being removed from the House of Commons was stated to be the cause of it. Could they believe that to be the real fact? Could they believe that, because a man much respected had died in the fulness of years, and his son stood in his place, that was a sufficient reason why the British house of Commons was to be set abroad, like a flock of sheep that had lost its leader? The House of Commons was not then sitting, and it ought not then to have been disturbed. Lord Althorp's services were not lost to the Government; that Government, too, could have gone on even had Lord Althorp's services been lost to the Cabinet, as they were to the House of Commons. Lord Melbourne was prepared to go on with the business of the country, even without Lord Althorp's valuable assistance, and therefore the removal of Lord Althorp from his situation was not the real reason why the Government was dismissed and the Parliament dissolved. Whatever were the real reasons, they knew nothing of them as yet, but he humbly conceived that there were two points yet to be cleared up, and these were—first, how the hon. Gentlemen opposite came into the seats in which they now sat; and next, what they meant to do now that they were there? How the hon. Gentlemen came there was not, as yet recorded in history; and what they mean to do, or what to concede, was also wrapped up in the veil of obscurity. He should vote for the Amendment.

Mr. Maclean

fully agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that it was becoming in a young Member of that House to sit and acquire some little experience before he presented himself to the consideration of the House; but he would say, that he was placed in a difficult position, because he either must affirm that the Address in answer to his Majesty's Speech, responded to the views which had been stated by the Prime Minister; or he must concede to the noble Lord, the Member for Yorkshire, that the Address which it was proposed to carry up to his Majesty, was so vague and so indefinite, as not to speak the sentiments of his Majesty's faithful Commons. Now be begged to say that he was standing in the situation of a new Member of that House, listening with diligence to the arguments upon both sides, and he was unable to extract from the Gentlemen opposed to him upon this occasion any single reason why he should vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord. The noble Lord stated that he considered the Address as indecisive and indefinite, and the speech of the right hon. Baronet, the first Minister of the Crown, not a satisfactory explanation of the principles upon which the Ministry were about to act. How, he would ask the noble Lord, did that declaration tally with what they had heard the evening before from the hon. Member for Southwark, who said, that in his lifetime, and in the course of his Parliamentary experience, he had never met so clear and so definite an exposition of principles, as that which had been made by the right hon. Baronet. But in what way was he, a new Member of that House, to form his opinions, amidst so much contradiction on the other side, if he thought as he did, that the speech of the right hon. Baronet was a satisfactory explanation of the opinions delivered by him to his constituents at Tamworth, and which the noble Lord, the Member for a portion of Lancashire, said embodied "sound, good, old, constitutional Whig doctrines." The noble Lord then acknowledged these doctrines as pure old Whig doctrines, and he, consequently, must concede that the explanation of the Prime Minister was a sufficient declaration of the principles on which he intended to act. He would take the liberty for one moment of addressing himself to the language of the Amendment. The Amendment appeared to him to pledge the House to this: —that, by the dissolution of Parliament there had been an interruption given to those principles of reformation, upon which the great Act itself had been framed. It seemed, indeed, somewhat inconsistent in argument to say that the late House of Commons was so popular—that it was a House of Commons acting so manifestly on Reforming principles, and that those principles were so broad cast (if he might use the term) in this country—it was, as it appeared to him, inconsistent in any man to argue, that if the spirit of Reform was so deeply fixed throughout the country, Reform could run the slightest risk from a dissolution of the last Parliament. If hon. Gentlemen were anxious to achieve measures calculated to advance the cause of Reform, it would be surely be best effected by a dissolution of Parliament! If they wish to scatter more widely those doctrines and opinions in which they prided themselves, where could they have such an opportunity of disseminating them as when they addressed their respective constituencies upon the occasion of an election? Therefore, upon that point alone, he could not agree to the Amendment. He would not believe that any danger would arise to the true Constitutional doctrines of Reform, which were those which hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, meant to act upon, from an appeal to the intelligence of the people. But it had been asked on the other side of the House, by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, by what mystery it was that his Majesty's Ministers found themselves in the position which they at present occupied? He would answer—by no mystery at all, but by the simplest course of things which could be brought to the conception of the humblest individual. What was the language of Lord Melbourne when he accepted the Seals of office in the House of Lords? Why, that he felt so deeply the great assistance which he derived from Lord Althorp—that the co-operation of that noble Lord was so virtually essential to the Government which he was about to undertake—that he declared he would not, on any consideration, accept the Seals of office without the assistance of that noble Lord. What had been the language of Earl Grey when he resigned office? He (the hon. Gentleman) had had the good fortune to hear the declaration, which he made, that he could no longer go on with the Government of the country, when he had been deprived of what the noble Earl emphatically called "his right arm!" If, then, Earl Grey considered the noble Lord his "right arm," that noble Lord having, since Lord Melbourne's taking the Government, been transferred to the other House of Parliament—if Earl Grey considered Lord Althorp in this light at a time when his Administration had not suffered from various secessions, and when it was in its integrity, what became of the "mystery" in reference to his Majesty's Ministers occupying their present position? Might not the secession of Lord Stanley and of other persons in the Ministry, accompanied by Lord Melbourne's declaration when Lord Althorp was abstracted from the House of Commons, have given his Majesty reason to think that such a Ministry could not go on. Should his Majesty have said "I am willing to embark my fortunes in the wreck of your Administration;" or might he not have said, "I must again appeal to my people, since the loss you have sustained is so great as you yourselves acknowledge it to be. He must own that he had been yesterday very much astonished at the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. That hon. and learned Gentleman stated that from the Ministerial side of the House there had been heaped upon the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, such profuse and lavish flattery, as almost to disgust him. He remembered with what peculiar emphasis the hon. and learned Member addressed the noble Lord, and from the appearance and demeanour of that hon. Member, he perceived how deeply he felt the inspiration of the poet pourtrayed in the fiction which he quoted. But, why, when he addressed the noble Lord, and stated that from the Ministerial side of the House, that he, the noble Lord, had been so profusely flattered, as to shock him with its indecency; why did he conclude by so copious an effusion of flattery as to make the House suppose, that the hon. and learned Gentleman felt no sincere aversion to prolong the strain he so loudly deprecated. It was clear that noble Lord had perceived on the other side of the House the strangest elements in combination. He saw there the most extraordinary men, with the most extraordinary opinions coalescing, and doubtless had been touched by that sense of the ridiculous which had affected the Roman poet when he exclaimed— Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam Jungere si velit, et varias inducere plumas Undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum Desinat in piscem mulier formosa superne; Spectatum admissi risum teneatis, amici? No doubt they all adored the "mulier formosa superne," but was there one who did not turn with abhorrence from the "disgusting tail." There was a limit or licence which was occasionally surpassed, a licence allowed to poets as well as painters, but surely no latitude was admissible for the formation of such a coalition as that which the great author had so happily pourtrayed— Sed non ut placidis coëant immitia, non ut Serpentes avibus geminentur, tigribus agni. He could only say, in returning to the declaration which the right hon. Baronet had made of the principles on which he meant to act, that he would give him a fair and honest trial. He had made this declaration before, and he made it again because he was of opinion, and he knew it was in accordance with the expressed declaration of those constitutional writers, whom Gentlemen of the opposite side reverenced deeply and deservedly that the dignity as well as the utility of that House would be best preserved by preventing it from becoming an aristocratic senate on the one hand, or a democratical assembly on the other. Such a House he hoped they had obtained, under whose protecting influence the liberties of the people would ever be found undiminished in their integrity, and co-operating and congenial in the undoubted privileges of the Peerage, and the undisputed prerogative of the Monarch.

Lord Dudley Stuart

—I am anxious to notice an observation of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Stamford, and I am much surprised that it has not been animadverted upon by any hon. Gentleman on this side of the House. Various opinions have been expressed with regard to the dissolution of the late Ministry; various opinions have been set forth with reference to the merits of the Melbourne Administration; but such a declaration as that which has emanated from the hon. Gentleman opposite I did not think any person, either in this House or in any assembly in the country, would have had what I must call the assurance to pronounce. The declaration made by that hon. Gentleman was, in substance, an insult to the late Parliament, or at least to the majority of the late Parliament—it was an insult to the majority, as I believe it to be, of the present Parliament—and it was an insult to the great majority of the nation. The hon. Gentleman delivered it as his opinion that no honest man did, in his heart, approve of the Melbourne Administration. I have only to appeal to the country at large whether they agree with the hon. Gentleman? I, for one, claim for myself the character and feelings of an honest man—as such I stand here; and I tell the hon. Gentleman—I tell the House—and I tell the country, that I did approve of the Melbourne Administration, and that I deeply regret the dismissal of that Administration. Moreover, I tell the hon. Gentleman that in this opinion and in these sentiments I am joined by the majority of this House. I have said thus much, Sir, because I could not forbear noticing the wonderful declaration of the hon. Gentleman. I shall now apply myself to the question before the House. I am free to admit that I feel some embarrassment upon the present occasion. I have no wish whatever to join in any factious vote. I have no wish to give to the present Administration any factious opposition. That declaration I have already made to my constituents on the hustings—that declaration they were pleased with, and they approved of it. It is a matter of indifference to me as to who are the men to rule this country, provided the measures to be propounded by them are such as I can approve of, and which should justify the fair expectations of the country at large. But I confess, Sir, that I cannot concur in the Address proposed, because the Speech which we have heard from the Throne does not give me satisfaction; and is one which ought not to satisfy the House. There are in it, certainly, many things which I am glad to hear— there are many portions of it of which I approve. I was rejoiced to hear that the attention of the Government was to be paid to the state of the agricultural interest, which, I think, has hitherto been too much neglected. I say I was glad to find that some measures were in contemplation for the purpose of relieving this most important interest. It afforded me pleasure to hear that a measure was in contemplation intended for the relief of the Dissenters to a certain extent; and I heard it with still more satisfaction stated by the right hon. Baronet, that the measure alluded to in his Majesty's Speech was not the only one intended to be proposed. If, Sir, I find fault with the Speech from the Throne, it is not so much for what it says, as for what it has omitted; and certainly I do consider that with its omissions, the Speech is one which this House cannot be pleased with, but that it must regard it with the greatest dissatisfaction. If, Sir, I have not been satisfied on hearing his Majesty's Speech, the declarations which have been made by his Majesty's Ministers, and their supporters, have not been of a nature to remove that impression. The right hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has excused himself from giving any pledge to any measure with regard to Municipal Reforms, by stating that the report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of Municipal Corporations was not yet laid before the House. This method of excusing himself certainly appears very plausible. The right hon. Baronet says, "Let us wait till we have further information;—let us see what the contents of the Report are;—and then let us decide upon what are to be adopted measures." If the right hon. Baronet had said something with reference to another Commission of no importance—if the Speech had alluded to the Commis- sion appointed to inquire into the revenues and state of the Irish Church in the terms in which it spoke of the other Commission—I would have voted against the Address. The right hon. Baronet took great credit to himself for every thing. He came forward to say that he took upon himself the entire responsibility of assuming the Government of the country, and then stated the measures which he intended to introduce. Some hon. Gentlemen, however, have said that he was not sufficiently explicit—that they did not know what line the right hon. Gentleman intended to pursue, or what measures he would introduce. But if any man entertain a doubt as to what the right hon. Gentleman means to do, can any one man doubt what he does not mean to do? He has stated, in point of fact, that whatever might be the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the revenues and state of the Irish Church—that, whatever may appear to be the amount of the revenue of that Church—whatever may be the numbers of those for whom those revenues are intended to be applied—however disproportionately, even though they be ten times or a hundred times larger than can possibly be required—still, that he is determined not to apply this Ecclesiastical property to any other but Ecclesiastical purposes. Do I find fault with this declaration? Not at all, because, knowing the opinions which the right hon. Baronet holds on this subject, I think it was at least manly and candid on his part to state them. But with the opinions I hold I cannot support him; and I think that those opinions which I entertain should be those of the majority of the House, and that they will not support him. I cannot think that any Government acting upon the principles of the right hon. Baronet ought to stand; and, therefore, I oppose the present Administration. I hope that no hon. Gentleman on earth will imagine that I am not animated by a due and proper regard and reverence for the doctrines of the Protestant Church, in which I was brought up. I yield to no man in my attachment to that Church, but I have yet to learn that the best method of disseminating the doctrines of any Chuch is to have its coffers full; and that in proportion to its riches, so are its doctrines propagated. I rather think, Sir, that if hon. Gentlemen will investigate the state of the Establish- ment in Ireland, they will find that the Protestant Church has not succeeded in making proselytes. There is another topic in the Speech upon which some remarks were made by the supporters of his Majesty's Ministers, to which, perhaps, no person would have adverted except in terms of approval. But it seems they find that his Majesty continues to receive the most friendly assurances from Foreign Powers. This is what was heard with great pleasure; but with no pleasure or satisfaction whatever have I heard the supporters of his Majesty's Ministers congratulate themselves on the increased degree of confidence evinced by the despotic Powers of Europe! Who, Sir, are the persons who felt this increased degree of confidence towards our Government? I consider that they are the despotic rulers of Austria, of Russia., and of Prussia. The right hon. Baronet deprecated the course which is sometimes pursued in this House of loading with personal obloquy and strong vituperation the persons who possess power in despotic Governments. I join the right hon. Baronet in thinking such a course indecent and indecorous, and as tending to injure the cause which is meant to be advanced. Sir, I have never adopted that course; but I denounce the public acts of those Powers! Can I consider the increased confidence of those men as matter for congratulation whose policy has been at all times to crush the very name of liberty, wherever she has dared to raise her head? When I recollect the conduct of one of these Governments lately, at Frankfort—and more recently in Switzerland—interfering with the just rights of the people of that country, and attempting to bully them out of their privileges, which it has always been their pride and glory to maintain—when we hear of arrangements being made for erecting fortresses on the very frontiers of this gallant country,—when I recollect that another of those Powers is inimical to our interests in the East of Europe, and that we do not hear of any disarming of that Power, no withdrawal of troops from the frontiers of Turkey—when we know that a Russian fleet remains in the Black Sea—and when, above all, I consider that all the three despotic Powers are the spoliators of Poland, I confess I feel no satisfaction that they have the confidence of our Government. When I name Poland, I speak of that country whose very name no man can utter without admiration for her past achievements; and no true lover of liberty can think of her without feeling that her interests are bound up and identified with those of every free country. When I consider that the three Powers have oppressed and destroyed Poland—that they have done this in violation of treaties, and in derision of those which were made with us, and in a manner to humble us in the eyes of all Europe, and to make us cut a miserable figure—when, I say, I consider all this, I lament that any person should congratulate us on the increased confidence of these Powers? What is the meaning of this confidence? How are we to define it? Do these Powers entertain the hope that we shall continue to suffer them, when it suits their policy, to trample under foot all treaties formed with us, and that we shall sit quietly by to be humbugged by this said confidence? I, for one, am afraid that this is the feeling. 'When a change took place in the Administration of the country, and I heard that the Duke of Wellington was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, many persons told me that the Duke would bring his talents and vigorous mind to bear—that he would assert the honour of this country in a manner which had not been pursued by the preceding Government. I did not think that the preceding Government did this in the manner they ought, and I have always been ready to say so. I thought so with reference to the Administration of Earl Grey. I never hesitated to oppose them in their foreign policy, in which I think they were wrong [Hear, hear."] I thank the hon. Gentleman for that cheer, for it affords me the opportunity of saying where they were wrong. I tell him an instance in which they were in error—in which they were so wrong that this country will lament it for many years. I think they were wrong when they neglected the great and glorious opportunity of saving Poland. If we had had a man at the head of the Councils of this nation of a comprehensive mind, to see the result of our interference at that time in behalf of Poland, not for the purpose of interfering in her internal policy, but, for the purpose of enforcing treaties; this would have been a legal interference, and no infringement upon the principle of non-interference. If this had been done Poland would have been saved, and a great and just barrier would have been placed in the centre of Europe against the designs of the neighbouring Powers. One great Power had never ceased to aim at endless power. But should we be blamed for opposing her with all our energies? I have, fear, taken up much of the time of the House, and perhaps my zeal in the cause of Poland has betrayed me too far, but I could not restrain the expressions of my opinions, and I now return to the subject more immediately before the House. I wish I could feel any satisfaction in supporting the Amendment; but I really think that there is a great deal which is objectionable in it. My principal objection to the Speech from the Throne is that no mention is therein made of the inquiry into the Irish Church; and I think it would have been much better if the Amendment had embodied this subject, expressing, at the same time, our regret that the Commission has been overlooked as one of no importance, whilst others are noticed in a very different manner. This would have been a defined proceeding, for at present the matter may be explained by one person in one way, and by a second in another. I regret, also, that my noble Friend should have adopted the expression of dissatisfaction at the late dissolution. I don't know, after all, whether we are called upon to use any such expression of such regret. I dislike that expression the more because another reason given for the regret felt at the late dissolution is, that it has interrupted and endangered the carrying on all those Reforms which ought to be effected. I do not think it has endangered those Reforms. For these reasons then, Sir, the Amendment is not framed to meet my satisfaction on the one hand, but on the other hand I cannot vote for the Address, because that would evince an expression of confidence in the present Ministry, for whom I cannot vote. They have not my confidence when they do not possess that of the country, but of foreign despotic Power.

Mr. Sergeant Goulburn

said, that in asking for the courtesy of the House to a Member coming among them for the first time, he should endeavour to compress what he had to say within the narrowest possible compass. With regard to the form of the Amendment, it was conceded on all hands that it was not what it pretended to be; that it professed to be one thing, but its real object was evidently an- other. He had always understood, that with every assembly of Englishmen, and particularly with an English House of Commons, if one thing told more than another, it was plain truth speaking, and fair dealing. Now he would assert that the Amendment was a false and pretended Amendment. It was framed with a view to obtain some few votes from the unwary. It professed to add to the Address something which the noble Mover of the Amendment had himself called milk-and-water but under which he (Mr. Serjeant Goulburn) contended lurked gall, and bitterness, and party faction. He would, however, pass that by, and proceed at once to consider what was really the question which the Amendment was intended to raise. It was conceded, he believed, that it raised this question; Shall we, or shall we not, eject the present Ministers,—and eject them without a trial?" In other words,—"Shall the King be forced back, against his will, to the Melbourne Cabinet?" He thought that no individual could have listened to the speeches on the other side and not have come to this conclusion—that, mixed as their politics might be, widely varying as they did in every possible sentiment, yet, for a very short space of time, they had agreed to combine for the purpose of bringing back the Melbourne Cabinet.—["Assent from both sides."]—He would state some few reasons why he believed that upon this question, he would not only say this House, but the country at large, was against them. The first objection he had to such a course was, that it was interfering with the undoubted prerogative of the King. And, moreover, it partook of what, from the short time he had been in the House, he believed to characterize the conduct of Gentlemen on the other side—disingenuousness; professing one thing, and meaning another. They told the House that the King had a free choice with respect to who should be his Ministers; but what sort of a choice. Was it a free choice? No; but that the Sovereign was free to choose certain individuals whom they should prescribe, but obliged to reject all others. Free in this respect—that no matter what the capabilities for office might be, what the talents, or what the integrity might be, those Gentlemen would concede only this, "You shall take one party, and you must reject the other." He had a right to argue thus. Let them look to the nature of the choice which these Gentlemen would give to the King on the present occasion. They said, we will have back, at all events, the Melbourne Cabinet. — [Here there were some cries of "No, No!"] — Then he would ask,—whom else would they have? That one single question put them, in his humble judgment, altogether out of the argument. Had any one ventured to tell the House whom they meant to have? He might, indeed, except the name of the hon. Member for Middlesex. But he believed Gentlemen would not go with him; at all events, whatever the hon. Gentleman himself might think, he was sure the country would not have him at the head of the Administration. If, then, there be a Government at all, it must be by the return of the Melbourne Cabinet. He did not mean to say, that hon. Members might not now dissent from his proposition, now that they perceived its bearing against their argument, but if the House dissented from that proposition, again he would ask,—what Cabinet would they have in place of the present one? Let them look a little to the parties who composed the late Cabinet, and those who constituted the present. Upon this issue, (to use the language of his profession) he would put himself upon his country. Would they take the great Seal from Lord Lyndhurst who now held it, and transfer it to Lord Brougham. He would not appeal to that House only, but he would go into every dwelling of every individual constituent in the country; and would ask, whether any man would endure a comparison between those two individuals. It had been admitted by the other side, and by their advocates out of doors, that what had long been wanting in the Foreign department of this country was an individual possessing a comprehensive mind. Would they take the Seal from the noble Duke who now held that office, and put in his place the rejected of Hampshire. Upon that question he would go with hon. Gentlemen to his country. There was not a single individual, high or low, throughout the empire, who would not scout the comparison. Again, with respect to the Gentleman who should be the leader in this House, were they, he would ask, prepared to cashier the right hon. Baronet. If so, he would put this plain question to them—whom would they have in his place? Whom would they have in the place of that right hon. Gentleman whose presence restrained him (Mr. Serjeant Goulburn) from speaking in terms corresponding with the feelings of admiration he entertained for his great talents? Not only had that right hon. Gentleman the confidence of the great majority of those whom he (Mr. Serjeant Goulburn) now saw around him, but he had, also, the confidence of nine-tenths of the people of this country. If he were not to lead this House, who, he would again ask, was capable of leading it. He put it, then, to the House, whether between the present and the Melbourne Cabinet, any fair or candid mind could make a real and bonâ fide comparison. He knew that there were those who, for party purposes, would answer in the affirmative; but he was addressing those who had candour and honesty of heart, and he would ask whether any one of them could lay his hand on his heart and say, that between the individuals he had named, a fair comparison could be instituted? If this were so, if this were the fact, to whom were they to go when the object of the Amendment should be obtained, and the present Government should have been removed from office? Should they go to the late Ministers? Would that satisfy either the House or the country. Upon that question, both the country and the House had come to one conclusion. He knew perfectly well the notion which some Gentlemen on the opposite side entertained. They said, "True it is that we are, of the three parties, the weakest party in number"—and he (Mr. Serjeant Goulburn) would add in talent also. Lord Grey, he admitted, had in a great degree, the confidence of the country, and he felt also the confidence that was due to the talent, integrity, and character of the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire (Stanley) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland; but the Melbourne Cabinet, if brought back, must be without these. He knew what was asserted elsewhere, but not avowed here, because everything that was felt was not avowed in that House; he knew it was said by that party—"If you will let us, the weakest party in number and in power, come into office, we will govern you." But how? Why, by the aid of the right hon. Member for Tamworth?—"When we want to destroy, we will avail ourselves of the support of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and the Member for Middlesex; but when we want to conserve and uphold, we will then appeal to the high and manly feelings of the right hon. Member for Tamworth. We will beg the aid of his superior talent, for we know he will scorn to alter his opinion, or refuse his assistance whenever our measures warrant it." Thus, between the two strong parties in the State, the third, and weakest, party, sought to govern this country. Now, he must say, that there was something excessively mean in that conduct. He was sorry to be obliged to use the term; but nothing, in his judgment, could be more contemptible than that the weakest party in talent and number should seek to govern by the aid of the right hon. Baronet whenever they wanted it, for the purpose of conservation; and in all other cases by the support of those who scarcely disguised their wish to destroy every established Institution. But he apprehended that even, upon their own showing, they would fail. Nothing, undoubtedly, could shake the right hon. Baronet, or move him from that high and honourable course which he had pointed out for himself; but he was not quite sure that those whom he saw around him on this (the Ministerial) side of the House, would be ready to come down on all occasions to lend themselves to those Melbourne Gentlemen, and fight their battles for them against the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; and, if not, what would become of the State? Why, under a Government feeble in number and in talent, the institutions of the country would, one by one, be destroyed, and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin would reign, with undisturbed power, over this House and the country. There was a general feeling throughout the country, that the late Cabinet, shorn as it was of its brightest ornaments, was in business most inefficient. The House must have had ample experience of this on many occasions. But there was another reason for opposing their return to power. If the country desired one thing more than another, it was a suspension of political excitement, and, above all, of that turbulent conflict between parties, which was most fatal to calm and dispassionate discussion. The country wanted a firm and good Government—one which would give quiet and repose, and under which good and effective mea- sures would be well considered and adopted. But so long as such a Ministry as the late Ministry should be in office, it would be impossible to obtain tranquillity, because excitement was necessary to their existence,—without it they would cease to live. He most heartily wished, therefore, that the country might arrive at some period of tranquillity, for he often called to mind what the late Mr. Wyndham once observed, that "No wise man would think of unroofing his house to add a new story to it in the hurricane season." He was quite sure that, if the Melbourne Cabinet returned to power, the hurricane season would fearfully prevail. One more reason why he preferred the present Cabinet to the last was, that he (Sergeant Goulburn) could not but think it most important, that individuals connected with Institutions about to be reformed should themselves feel that the work of reform was in the hands of those who wished well to these institutions, and who, whilst professing to reform, had no secret intention to go further, and to destroy them. Thus, as a zealous Church-man, he (Sergeant Goulburn) had no objection to—nay, would cordially join in a Church Reform when conducted by those whom he knew were like himself devoted to the maintenance of her just rights;—but far otherwise must he feel with respect to changes planned and carried forward by men who avowed their wish for her entire subversion,—and so also with Corporate Reform,—if satisfied that Reform only, and not something far beyond it was intended,—Corporate bodies would, he was persuaded, shrink from no fair inquiry. He would conclude by expressing an earnest wish, that, whoever might be the Ministers, they would preserve untouched and inviolate those institutions under which this country had thriven so long and gloriously. One word more;—it was to read a passage which had been just put into his hands by an hon. Member behind him, extracted from Mr. Southey's book," 'On the Progress and Prospects of Society." Speaking of the sanctuary of our Constitution, Mr. Southey had this remark, which he would recommend to the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite;—"If ever that sanctuary should be broken, it will be by the combined forces of Popery, dissent, and unbelief, marching together under one political flag."

Mr. Gisborne

said, that if he felt any anxiety on the present occasion, it was not from any difficulty which he expected to experience in the attempt to answer the learned Sergeant's arguments; for it was not so much his intention to address himself to them, as to state in few words the reasons which would induce him to give his support to the Amendment. Though he was generally, not universally, the supporter of the late Ministry; and though he professed on the hustings in every part of the county he had the honour to represent, that he went into Parliament a decided opponent of the present Administration, yet he would not, on that account only, have given his vote for the Amendment on the Address, because he did not think that the best occasion for trying the strength of party, or of demonstrating the want of confidence in the Administration. He should not, therefore, have adopted this course on the present occasion if he had not thought that, from the terms of the Address itself, and from the circumstances in which the country stood, an absolute necessity for moving an Amendment was imposed upon himself, and those Members of the House who entertained kindred sentiments with his own. He would, in the first place, go to the very last point adverted to in the Address, and give his reasons why he thought the House was called upon to express an opinion as to the dissolution of the last Parliament. One intelligible reason for the dissolution of the late Ministry was, that his Majesty was advised to think, and did think, that the country agreed with him in supposing that that Parliament was proceeding in measures of Reform without a due regard to the preservation of the great institutions of the country. Now, he apprehended that no Gentleman in that House would maintain that the last Parliament was so unreasonable a body of men that no Ministry could be found to which that Parliament, on its own principles, would afford support, out of the dissensions in the late Ministry, if they really had any existence, though he firmly believed they had not. No necessity, at all events, could have arisen for the dissolution of the Parliament, even if they afforded any ground for the dissolution of the Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman was now extremely desirous to identify himself with the principles of Lord Grey. "The measures," said the right hon. Baronet, "which Lord Grey's Government supported I support; the measures which Lord Grey's Government opposed I oppose. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to produce the impression, that the principles on which his Government was to be conducted were, in fact, the principles of Lord Grey. Then he (Mr. Gisborne) asked, why was it necessary for the right hon. Baronet to dismiss a Parliament which was ready to act upon those principles—a Parliament which had given Lord Grey's Government the most determined, continued, and decided support. The supposition was absurd—it was totally inadmissible; and they must, therefore, revert to that which he had before stated. The King had put a question to that House, and it would be neither manly nor straightforward in that Parliament, nor respectful towards his Majesty, if they did not give him an explicit answer; if he (Mr. Gisborne), for instance, as the Representative of a large constituency for the second time, did not say to the King,—"Your Majesty has put this question to my constituents; they direct me distinctly to inform your Majesty, that they entertain no such opinions of the past conduct of that Parliament—no such anticipations of the future." On these grounds, he maintained, that the present Parliament could not pass by the question of the dissolution—on these grounds it was, that the necessity for an Amendment on the Address arose. The next point to which he was desirous of adverting, was the claims of the Dissenters. In the Address allusion was only made to one single point of relief—relief from the disability of being compelled to perform the ceremony of marriage according to the rites of a Church from which they conscientiously differed. He did not deny that this part of the Address was satisfactory as far as it went; but if it were the right hon. Gentleman's intention to bring in a similar Bill to that which had been introduced by the noble Lord, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, he apprehended that it would not receive the support of that House. He should be very happy to hear that the Dissenters were to receive from the hands of the right hon. Baronet a more satisfactory settlement of this question. He came next to the subject of the admission of Dissenters into the Universities; and on this point he must take the right hon. Baronet's speech in conjunction with the Address. He had said, unequivocally, that what the Dissenters demanded was, to be placed by Parliament on terms of perfect equality with the remainder of their Christian brethren. In reply to that demand, the right hon. Baronet said,—"I cannot admit you; my principles will not permit me to admit you to the Universities. I do not even intend to allow you to confer similar degrees by bodies of your own enacted by law, and which shall have equal force and validity. But," said the right hon. Baronet, "there are certain bodies in this kingdom with whom I stand on very good terms. The late Government were sad fellows, and always at variance with the constituted authorities of the country. We, however, are differently situated; I cannot give you an Act of Parliament, but I will procure you a resolution of the College of Physicians: I will get you a vote of the Benchers of Lincoln's-inn. Take these as securities for your claims, and do not press me further." Did the right hon. Baronet really think that the Dissenters would be satisfied with such smooth-tongued and hypocritical securities? Did the right hon. Baronet seriously imagine the Dissenters would be left at the mercy of the College of Physicians? And was this an answer which it became a Minister of the Crown to give those who claimed, and claimed justly, to be put on a footing of perfect equality with the rest of the community? They required the security of laws. Were the resolutions and votes of these different bodies like the laws of the Medes and Persians, that could never be reversed? Were the Dissenters to be left in their hands? They must be very different in spirit, and in a due assertion of their own claims, from what he supposed them to be, if they would not reject with scorn and indignation the proposal of the right hon. Baronet? The next point was that of Church-rates: considering the extent to which that question had been agitated, he thought it would have been a very becoming thing to introduce it into the King's Speech. The settlement which the right hon. Baronet proposed would he was confident, be unsatisfactory. He simply proposed that those who sustained the burthen should receive from the hands of those whom they had never considered as their friends the very same species of relief that they had refused to accept from the late Government. With reference to the Church of Ireland, he thought the House was bound to recognise in its Address to the Crown that the dissatisfaction which prevailed in Ireland did not arise solely from the tithe system (the only source mentioned in the speech), but out of the state and condition of the Irish Church itself. He would not enter into that question, however, as an hon. Friend of his had promised to afford the House an early opportunity for its discussion. He would merely say, that he considered it an omission in the Speech which no one who thought with him could avoid endeavouring to remedy. With regard to Corporations, the right hon. Gentleman had said to the House, "I use nearly the same language to you as Earl Grey's Government did; you were satisfied with that: why are you not satisfied with me?" He would tell the right hon. Gentleman why the Dissenters should not be satisfied with the same language from him. Earl Grey had given them the 10l. franchise in cities and boroughs. Earl Grey had opened the Scotch corporations in the way in which, in his opinion, Government ought to open the English Corporations. What, on the other hand, had been the course of the right hon. Gentleman and those with whom he acted? A Bill was brought into the House to restrain the application of Corporation Funds to election purposes. The right hon. Gentleman, and that Member of the Cabinet who was supposed to be most nearly connected with him, were two out of the three persons who spoke in opposition to the measure. That Bill went up to the House of Lords. Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst also spoke in opposition to it, and he would read to the House the words which my Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst used on that occasion, in procuring its rejection for the second time. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester had recommended a particular book to his (Mr. Gisborne's) consideration. He would take the liberty, as he represented the town of Leicester, to recommend to his particular and special consideration the opinion of Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst on this particular subject. The Lord Chancellor argued, in the first place, that the Corporations ought to have influence in elections. He had no doubt whatever that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester was exactly of the same opinion. The noble and learned Lord then proceeded to say, "they make use of their funds as other individuals do, in correct and proper expenses incident to an election. What is that? I will take the case of the Corporation of Leicester. A great part of the expense of 27,000l. arose in bringing an immense number of out-voters from London. Bringing out-voters cost Mr. Evans 20,000l. and the Corporation 27,000l. He (Mr. Gisborne) begged to assure the House that this quotation was perfectly accurate; every syllable of it was taken from the "Parliamentary Debates." The noble Lord added, "I see nothing unconstitutional in a corporation applying its funds in order to maintain a due influence in the town where they reside." Now, considering the speech of the Lord Chancellor, and the course which the right hon. Gentleman had himself taken with respect to Corporations, he could not be very much surprised that the House should be unwilling to remain satisfied with the assurance he had given in the speech, that the Report of the Corporation Commission should be laid on the Table of the House. No; the House meant to go farther; they would test the honesty of the Reformers; they would ascertain which of the Reformers, after having professed popular principles, and having ever stood by popular constituencies would assist the right hon. Gentleman in giving the go-by to this plain and intelligible principle (he would use the words of the Amendment)—the principle that our "Municipal Corporations shall be placed under vigilant popular control." If the right hon. Gentleman had ever stepped forward to recognise the present state of those Corporations as a grievance and an abuse, the House might have had some hopes of him; but he was a ticklish person to deal with on such subjects. There was but one way of proving any considerable abuse to him, and that was by a Parliamentary majority. Therefore, he would say to the House, keep your majority together, for the moment you part with your majority, you part with the only argument by which, on the subject of a grievance or an abuse, you can hope to convince the Minister. If you want to prove the existence of a grievance and abuse to the right hon. Gentleman, you must not prove it by argument—no; you must not prove it by evidence—no; you must not prove it by assertion—no; the right hon. Gentleman had a particular objection to something which somebody might call a grievance or an abuse—no; you must prove it by a Parliamentary majority. That was the only way to prove to the right hon. Gentleman that the Test and Corporation Acts were a grievance and abuse; it was in that way it was proved to him that the state of the Catholics in England and Ireland was an abuse. It was in that way it was proved to the right hon. Gentleman, though he was not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman was even ready to admit it now, that the rotten boroughs were an abuse. He believed that, throughout the whole course of his Parliamentary career, the right hon. Gentleman had never, or hardly ever, come forward, of his own accord, to recognise any considerable grievance or abuse. He did not deny that the right hon. Gentleman had effected reforms—and many very useful reforms too—in matters of detail; but he had steered particularly clear of admitting all abuses which could in any way whatever alter the seat of power. If this had been the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman, why was he to call upon the House to put their trust in him on the subject of Corporations? The right hon. Gentleman told them that he had nothing in common with these Corporations, and could have no interest in objecting to reform them. Why, if the right hon. Gentleman did, it would be worse than suicide; it would be an absolute case of felo de se, not even to be accounted for on the ground of temporary insanity. Having adverted to these reasons why he considered the Amendment necessary, he would now proceed to touch upon two or three points arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his address, had congratulated the House on the prospect he had of the satisfaction which the formation of the present Government would afford to the great powers of Europe. It was, indeed, a proud day for England, when the mild and beneficent King of Poland, when the paternal ruler of half Italy, when the ex-Kings of France and Portugal, and the rebel Pretender to the Crown of Spain, were rejoiced at the appointment of an English Ministry; when the Court of Petersburgh was propitiated by the selection of an Ambassador of sentiments kindred to its own. London, and Edinburgh, and Dublin were disgusted, but there was joy in Peters- burgh, and Berlin, and Vienna. It was only an exchange of confidence. The last Government was trusted in the three metropolises of the British empire; the present Government was trusted in the metropolises of central and eastern Europe. The right hon. Gentleman gave them this as a ground of consolation. It reminded him of a subject of consolation put into the mouth of the Prince Regent by the author of "The Twopenny Post-bag." We have lost the warm hearts of the Irish 'tis granted; But then we've got Java, an island much wanted To put the last lingering few who remain Of the Walcheren warriors out of their pain. The next point to which the right hon. Gentleman adverted was the division of parties on this side of the House. "Oh," said the right hon. Gentleman, "you are disunited in your principles; some of you are content to stop at the Reform Bill, and some of you want to go a great deal further!" Were hon. Members so very united on the other side of the House? Was the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Essex, whom he was happy to see in his place, so completely regenerated, had he so thoroughly renounced the errors of his youth and manhood, that he should be identified in principle with the right hon. Member for Kent, and the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge? Did the whole of the present Government adopt the sentiments of the noble Lord the Member for Norwich (Lord Stormont)? Were they all exactly imbued with the principles of a gallant Colonel—he was not certain whether the gallant Officer was then in the House; if so, he hoped the gallant Officer would excuse what he was going to say, for he begged to assure him that he had no intention of making an attack upon him—a gallant Colonel who might be designated as the concentrated essence of Orangeism in Ireland? Was the Government exactly identified in principle with the Member for the University of Oxford? If so, he should like to know in which order the conversion had taken place. The right hon. Gentleman had attacked the Reformers about their principles, and what they had said upon them, and quoted some words out of a speech or letter of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin? Had nothing been said on the other side? Had the right hon. Gentleman heard of no very eminent Statesman who said that he saw no public ground of confidence in the present Administration? Had he not heard of any very eminent Statesman who had said that the present Administration was composed of the worst possible materials, of men who had been employed all their lives in promoting bad Government, and opposing good? Could the right hon. Gentleman stand a day—could his Government stand a single day—without the support of the Gentlemen who used that language? Did ever any Government stand in so humiliating a situation? And when was it—when was it that that letter of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was written? "Only in October last," said the right hon. Gentleman. Why, he had been told, though he totally disbelieved it, that yesterday, and the day before, and perhaps the day before again, negotiations had been going on, the object of which was to cement a most unnatural union between those who had used these expressions, and those to whom they were applied. Why, when were these expressions used? One month—one little month —before the meeting of Parliament— Thrift, thrift, Horatio! The election bak'd meats Did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables. He totally disbelieved the report to which he had just alluded. He did not believe it of the high-minded Representative of the House of Derby; neither did he believe it of the Statesman—he had almost said the Whig-Radical Statesman — who denounced the Prime Minister, who denounced the Bishop of Exeter, who four years ago had two or three notices standing on the Order-book, on any one of which he was prepared to turn out the Administration of the Duke of Wellington. He did not, and would not, believe that these individuals would consent to this unnatural union. But the right hon. Gentleman who taunted the Opposition with their divisions of opinion must depend on the noble Lord (Stanley), and on the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham), and them only, for his support. Why, what a miserable minority would the right hon. Gentleman's Government be left in on the very first division on which that party deserted him! Did he suppose that he could trim his boat so nicely between absolute principles on the one hand, and liberal principles on the other, that he was never to lose the support on the one side of the Representatives of the University of Oxford, and on the other of what he might call the Stanley party? On the whole, he thought the right hon. Gentleman might have chosen any topic with greater propriety than that of taunting the Reformers with divisions. But let the House consider a little the principles of the Gentlemen in office. A noble Lord, not now in his place, who was a stanch supporter of the present Ministry, had given notice of a motion on the subject of the Malt-tax. He said, "I want a reduction of five millions of taxation for the relief of the agricultural interest, and I will have it. I must have the Malt-tax taken off; that is a sine qua non." "I hope, said the right hon. Gentleman, if everything goes well, that at the end of the Session I may have 500,000l." No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would give this relief to the agriculturists. He only regretted that the tax on shepherd's dogs and tax-carts had been taken off, because it would have been a reduction exactly suitable to the means of the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Speaker, (continued the hon. Member), I do not know whether you have heard it, Sir, but when you were placed in that Chair, a very unfortunate effect was produced on public confidence. The funds fell to the extent of one and a quarter per cent.; indeed, so distressing is the state of the money-market at this moment, that I believe Consols for the April account are not higher than ninety-one five-eighths, or three-fourths. He should like to know to what extent the funds would fall on the day that the Marquess of Chandos carried, as he most assuredly would, his motion for the repeal of the Malt-tax. This was one of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters, mind; the Gentleman who was to carry that motion did not belong to their disunited side of the House. It was to the Ministerial side of the House that he belonged—that side so remarkably united in principle, who said such remarkably fine things of one another, and who were so exceedingly harmonious as to all their measures.—There was another point on which he would say a very few words—he meant the demand for a fair trial. On two or three occasions the right hon. Gentleman had claimed from the House a fair trial. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that he for one should be extremely glad to give it him, if he could at all ascertain either what the point was he calls upon them to try, or to whom he addressed his appeal. If they were to try whether the right hon. Gentleman—he would use the word he was about to utter without the slightest disrespect—had been an apostate to all his former principles, that he could very well understand to be an intelligible point; but he negatived that idea himself; for he told the House, and he told the country in a public address, that he would not be an apostate to his former principles. Well, then, to whom did the right hon. Gentleman address himself? He did not address himself to his supporters on that side of the House; they had no occasion to try him; for they were perfectly satisfied with him already. He made this appeal then to the Opposition. He said, "I have not changed my principles; they were always as widely different from yours as are the poles asunder." He (Mr. Gisborne), was about to refer to the right hon. Gentleman's own expression. "Your principles (he says) always were, that reason and knowledge were the proper foundation of power; my principles have always been, that prescription is more valuable than either of them." Now he could not conceive any two things differing more entirely or more essentially than these principles. The consequence must be, that (the Opposition) to whom the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself, had been occupied all their lives in endeavouring to counteract his principles. When he was in power they had got him out as soon as they could; they had kept him out as long as they were able; but now he said, "My principles remain the same as they were a year or two back. I ask you to take me back once more, almost admitting your power to reject me, and see whether you can make those principles of mine, to which I will not be an apostate, a little more palatable to yourselves." All he could say was, that he would not take the right hon. Gentleman back on any such speculation. But the right hon. Gentleman used another argument to induce the opposition to give him a trial. He said, "I have the power of preventing the House of Commons from coming to a collision with the House of Lords. It is true, I have a majority against me here. Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that? [The Chancellor of the Exchequer, across the Table, "No."] He believed the right hon. Gentleman had a majority against him the other night. "It is true," says the right hon. Gentleman, "I had a majority against me here, but I can command a large majority in the House of Lords." This was the most singular argument that ever Minister addressed to a free country. It was the most singular argument and the least conservative of the rights and privileges of the Commons of England that ever was addressed to them. Without any equivocation and without any ambiguity of language, he would claim for the Commons of England the right to determine who should be the Minister in this country. He would claim it negatively as to persons, but positively as to principles. There was another topic; he was not sure whether it had been adverted to in this House, he believed it had been referred to in the other House of Parliament, and he must own that it appeared to him, that it ought to have been preliminary either to the Address or the Amendment. He considered that they had a right to know from the right hon. Baronet on what terms they sat there. He had a right to know from him whether they were at liberty to come to more than one division? or, to put the matter in the plainest terms, whether their existence as a Parliament depended on their supporting the present Ministry. They had a right to know, from the right hon. Baronet, whether, having made an appeal to the people, he meant to abide by it? This was no new question to be asked of a Minister. In the year 1784, the question was repeatedly asked, and every time answered. There appearing more than once to be some ambiguity in the answer given by the Minister, the Parliament addressed the Crown upon the subject; the Crown gave an answer to the Parliament, and declared, it should not be dissolved. He would press the right hon. Gentleman to answer this question. If he did not answer it, they should know what confidence he deserved from that House and from a great and determined people. There was only one other point on which he would trouble the House. He knew that many hopes on the other side of the House were built on the supposed impossibility of a Government being formed out of those who composed the Opposition; on that point he would only declare, first, his confidence, and next his wish. He had not the slightest doubt that a Government could be formed on this side of the House which would both unequivocally possess, and perfectly deserve, the confidence of the country. But he would not be deterred by any taunts that had been thrown out from the other side, from expressing his hope that when such a Government was formed, it would contain within itself—he would particularize two Members to simplify the case, but he would not take the liberty of using their names—some such men as the hon. Member for the City of London, (Mr. Grote) and the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton.) He was confident, that those Gentlemen were the Representatives of a class in this country who were too powerful to be with safety excluded from the Cabinet. He was confident, that men of their steadiness and determination being proposed to office from that class, would go a great way towards giving stability to any Administration, and infusing a just confidence into the bosoms of the people.

Mr. Patrick M. Stewart

wished to give his reasons for withholding his support from the Amendment. The King's Speech should be looked on fairly, and without prejudice, as an exposition of the principles of the Minister, and the mode in which he meant to carry on his Government, without reference to party views or political antipathies. He was no partisan, he was actuated by no selfish or political feeling, but he was resolved to do his duty to his country, his constituents, and his King. His object was to establish Government on those secure foundations that alone must lead to the solidity and perpetuity of any Government, namely, the advocacy of popular privileges, so far as those rights were not inconsistent with, and alien from, the maintenance of the sacred and acknowledged privileges and prerogatives of other branches of the Legislature. He was, then, no partisan. He wished to support the Government in carrying onward those measures that could justify any Government in demanding the sympathies of the country and the support of her Representatives. He was an unpledged man. He was there to use his judgment as well for the Ministry as for the country, and impartially for both; and reluctantly was he dragged to the determination of voting against those with whom he was wont to co-operate. Yet he was in common conscience bound to look to the professions of public men rather than to the identity of individuals. He was determined to use his own judgment. A few months ago, he was asked for his confidence in Government. Though he was most anxious to try and trust Government vet he could not tender them his individual support without having been first assured of the nature of their measures, and the tendency of their operations. He asked, what was to be said of the Church and Corporation Reform? Confidence was a plant of slow growth, yet, he was anxious to nurture it for a season. Full then of his determination to give the present Government an honest and just trial, he did not, at the same time, lend himself a passive tool to all their measures. It was idle to say, that Reform doctrines were not generally prevalent throughout the country. But, then they were not wild revolutionary Reform doctrines; they were steady and sound doctrines. The Reform Bill altered many of the pre-existing relations of social life. A great disorganization was produced, and now it was the policy as well as the duty of the House to bind up those dissevered relations, and restore the diseased condition of society to vigour, sanity, and health. The speech of the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) cleared up many of the doubts that hung as clouds over the public mind. His explanation was lucid and satisfactory. It contained sound Whig doctrines, and evinced a clear and not to be mistaken disposition to amend those errors in our social and political condition that were heretofore the subjects of so much complaint. That speech would be the subject of much congratulation to the country. Let the House then give Ministers the fair trial they asked for. The Government had a right to expect that. The remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire reminded him of an observation of Canning who, speaking of men and measures, and comparing the State to a stage-coach said, the horses were the men, and the measures the harness. He would follow up the illustration. He would not like to change horses suddenly, and without cause. If the measures without the men were retained they might have horses whose necks might be too thick for the collar, and whose heads might be too strong for the bridle. He did not much object to the Amendment, which was a diluted, vague, and unsubstantial thing. While it professed to censure Ministers it merely conveyed the expression of opinions and the declaration of principles that the present Government was pledged to promote. It echoed their principles, though it was levelled at their tenure of office. He did not, however, defend all the King's Speech; its strength was not equal to its length; and on questions of Municipal, Church, and Corporate Reform, he could not say, that it was as decisive, effective and satisfactory as he could wish. But the question was asked, would not you give Ministers a fair trial? That question should be answered, in his judgment, by a decided affirmative. Though he did not approve of all the Speech, yet he objected to the Amendment, which was vague, flimsy, and worthless. After the speech of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, which was so satisfactory on the question of the dissolution of the late Parliament, it would be captious, unhandsome, and unjust to revert to that point. While many circumstances connected with that event were still in doubt or kept in secrecy could there be with any show of justice an objection taken to that exercise of the prerogative? The country was ignorant of all the causes of the dismissal of the Ministers and dissolution of the late Parliament; and in the absence of full proof the House would be going out of its province if it passed a resolution either damnatory or laudatory of that measure. What led to the dissolution of the late Ministry? The removal of Lord Althorp, who was said and believed to be the prop of the Government. It was in the course of nature he should be soon called to the other House by the death of his father, Earl Spencer, so that the dissolution of the Government was a matter to be calculated on in the common progress of events. But it was idle to say, that the same Parliament or the same men should be the constant supporters of the same Minister. Pitt was supported by different Parliaments; why, then, should not the present Premier look to the support of a Parliament different from that which witnessed his accession to office, and which was pledged to oppose him, as much as any Parliament could be pledged to opposition to a Minister? Here was then a Government asking for a trial, giving more explanation than the Administration of Pitt, and why should they not get it? He heard much of the intentions of Government, but before he could confide he would require a proof. He had his hopes and his fears. There were many Reports of the conversion of the Tories to liberal principles. The Tories had changed heretofore, and why not again? And why, if the nation profitted by the conversion, should it repine? Hume, not Joseph Hume, but Hume the historian, said, the Tories had so long talked in a Republican style that they made converts of themselves, and embraced the sentiments of the larger portion of the Administration. So, he now imagined the Tories would amalgamate with the advocates of liberality and Reform, and merge their former prejudices in upholding the common prosperity of the country, and general toleration. He had no wish to lend himself to intrigue or cabal. He merely looked to the interests of his constituents and the empire at large. He trusted that all parties would unite in maintaining the establishments of the State, and checking that spirit of disorganization which some certain persons were fomenting and spreading through the country. He looked for order and allegiance. The present Government, he thought, was calculated to maintain both—its dissolution was little calculated to give security to either.—"If the present Government be displaced, another and a worse Government will be established."

Viscount Howick

was not surprised that the hon. Member who had just sat down, although he agreed in many of the opinions of those on the Opposition side of the House, should yet have come to the conclusion to vote against the Amendment. It appeared to him (Viscount Howick) that the question the House was now discussing had been much misrepresented in the speeches of the two hon. Members who had immediately preceded him. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Derbyshire acquiesce in what seemed to be the extraordinary mis-statement of the question at issue made by the hon. and learned Sergeant who preceded him. The hon. and learned Sergeant had commenced by complaining that the Amendment proposed was not fair, because it said one thing while it really meant another; and then deceived himself, as many profoundly learned men did, by overlooking the plain and obvious sense of the words of the Amendment, and attributing to it some hidden and mysterious meaning which those words were never meant to convey. The learned Sergeant had proceeded to contend that the object of the Amendment was to eject the present Government from office, and to restore the late Government. He could only say, that this did not appear to him to be the plain import of the words, and it was not the sense in which he, for one, supported the Amendment. The Amendment implied, as he believed, simply this—that the House distrusted the promises of liberal policy and reforming measures which had been made to the House by his Majesty's Ministers, and that it disapproved of the recent dissolution of Parliament. He would ask, then, how could any man who had supported the policy of the last Government for four years refuse to concur in the propriety of this Amendment? Were the promises held out to them by Ministers of a kind to be satisfactory to the House and the country? Nay more would these promises, even if they had been much more liberal than they really were, have given satisfaction, coming from those by whom they were made? In his opinion, never had there been a season in the history of this country in which it was of more importance than the present that the reins of Government should be placed in the hands of men capable of using them with firmness, and yet with moderation—of men endowed with the sagacity to foresee difficulties while still at a distance, and to provide that sagacity which became those who were desirous of meeting difficulties, and providing for the coming storm; above all, in the hands of men who were gifted with that most rare and most precious of all the qualities of a statesman, the art to know how to yield in the right place and in the right season—men, who knew when and where concessions were wise and necessary—when and where they were dangerous and inexpedient. And if, in the present juncture of affairs in this country, and still more so in Ireland, it was of the deepest importance that the reins of power should be held by hands like those, did his Majesty's present Ministers answer that description? Of the right hon. Baronet opposite he could not help saying, that in the particular art to which he had alluded—the art of knowing when in due time to give way—he had shown himself signally and fatally ignorant. He required only to mention the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts,—the still more momentous question of Catholic Emancipation,—the question of Parliamentary Reform, preluded as it was by the long discussion upon the disfranchisement of East Retford—he had only to touch upon those points to satisfy every man who heard him on either side of the House, who thought those measures were good in themselves or were evil,—the hon. Member for Kent, who resisted them all,—the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who went far beyond him (Viscount Howick) in his opinions, of what were requisite,—all—every Member, of every shade of opinion, must agree that the right hon. Baronet, in his past conduct, had shown himself deficient in sagacity, in discovering dangers even when they were close and obvious to the most casual observer. He had shown himself to be a pilot who, though loudly and repeatedly warned, would never admit that there were dangers before him until the vessel of the State was in the midst of the breakers. When he had said this, he was bound, at the same time to do justice, to the right hon. Baronet. He was willing to acknowledge, and with the utmost satisfaction he did acknowledge, the truth of that which the right hon. Gentleman himself stated the other night—namely, that during the last two years his conduct had been very different from that of many others by whom he was surrounded. In the conduct of the right hon. Baronet during that period he thought he saw a proof that the lesson—the dearly-bought lesson which the result of past years was calculated to teach—had not been thrown away. He thought he saw a proof that the right hon. Baronet had profited by experience, and that he was now more fully aware of the exigences of the times, and of the real feelings and wishes of his countrymen, than he had formerly been. He entertained that conviction so strongly, that he willingly confessed that he far less differed in his views of policy, and the general interests of the country, from the right hon. Baronet, than from many of those in whose company it was now his (Lord Howick's) fortune to be placed. But the character of one in an Administration, was not to be taken as that of the whole, and he could not help looking at the manner in which the other offices of Government had been filled up. He found that by far the majority of the working and subaltern situations in the Government were filled by men of extreme opinions. He found more—he found that the three great offices of Secretaries of State, were intrusted to the very last hands in which, in his opinion, they should have been placed. Of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, who was now charged with the superintendence of our domestic affairs—more than that, with the affairs of Ireland—he would say no more than this—that by his conduct in that House, he had shown no indications that any change had taken place in his opinions since the time when he was the Representative of the close, the Ecclesiastical, and the Orange borough of Armagh. With respect to the two other Secretaries of State, they who were intrusted with our foreign relations, and the interests of our colonial empire, they were individuals whose conduct during the last two years had been the very opposite of that of the right hon. Baronet. While he had the satisfaction of supporting the late Government, and of holding a subordinate office under it, he generally had the pride of finding the opinions he entertained approved of by the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman; but, he would ask, what, during that time, had been passing in the House of Lords? Did any man who heard him doubt that if the conduct of the right hon. Baronet's party in the House of Lords had been similar to that of the right hon. Baronet in the House of Commons, that his noble Friend, the Member for Lancashire, and those who were with him, who had left the Government to which he belonged, would still have formed part of the Administration which then existed? He heard an expression of dissent, but he was sure his noble Friend opposite would confirm what he said, that the causes which led to the gradual change in that Administration, and ultimately to its final removal, were mainly to be traced to the constant embarrassments which had been thrown in the way of those who wished to carry the very measures which it was now acknowledged must be carried, by those very individuals who had opposed the former Administration; but for those difficulties, had that Government been allowed to proceed in the manner in which it was anxious to go on, it probably would have had the strength that would have enabled it to survive those other causes which contributed to defeat, and ultimately entirely to break it up. Of the Opposition in the House of Lords, the Duke of Wellington and Lord Aberdeen were the two most active members. They lost no opportunity of thwarting and embarrassing the Government in every possible way. Look to the Irish Education question; look at the attempt to fan into a flame whatever prejudices might lurk in the minds of the English people with respect to that subject; look at the pains that were taken to nourish the antipathy that existed in one party in Ireland against another—and all that, too, by men who were now prepared, as the House was to collect from the speeches that had been made, to pursue what had been called a liberal course. Not only that, but in foreign policy, those two individuals had gone a length to which, he believed, never men had gone before, in this country. They thought it not inconsistent with their duty to hold out every encouragement in their power to the King of Holland, to the usurper of Portugal, and to all the foreign powers who were resisting the policy which was pursued by the responsible advisers of the Crown. The principles and opinions which they avowed in conducting that reckless, and he would say, factions opposition, made him entertain the persuasion that, of all men in the world, they were the two most unfit at this moment to be intrusted with the momentous interests which had been put into their hands. With respect to internal affairs, and the affairs of Ireland, there was the control of the House of Commons to correct what was amiss, and to force even a reluctant Minister to give up his place, if he did not follow the proper course; but how different was it with respect to our colonial and foreign policy? How, for instance, could the House know what were the very first instructions Lord Aberdeen had sent out to the Colonies? Talk to him (the noble Lord) of a fair trial upon a point which involved the necessity of committing the destinies of so large a portion of the inhabitants of the earth, into the hands of a man, whose opinions, honestly entertained no doubt, but, therefore, the more to be dreaded, seemed so opposed to the welfare of the human race, so totally at variance with the whole line of policy which had been adopted for the last four years by the late Government. But, then if the composition of the Government was not calculated to satisfy the country, he would ask hon. Members, what they thought of their first act? The very first act was not merely a dissolution of Parliament, but an attempt in every place where, by any means, they could have the smallest influence, to turn out even the most moderate Reformers. The right hon. Baronet seemed to deny that statement, but if, as he had said, his opinions during the last two years were not very different from those of the late Government, he could not help asking why a relation of his own was opposed on the part of Government, in favour of an individual who only two years ago had announced himself a Radical Reformer? The right hon. Gentleman might, indeed, not be cognizant of the fact, but he could tell the right hon. Gentleman who was; the present Lord Chancellor had actually canvassed for votes in favour of that individual. He might also add, that the right hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Henry Hardinge) who at that moment sat near to the right hon. Baronet had done so too. At this stage of the proceedings, however strongly he felt upon the dissolution, strongly as he condemned the measure, the more so as he thought the result had been to increase the number of persons in that House holding extreme opinions on both sides, and to reduce the number of those who had entertained moderate and sound sentiments—strongly as he felt upon that point, he would say no more upon it, but holding the opinions he did, and believing those opinions were entertained by a very large majority of the country; he thought the House was bound respectfully to lay them before the Throne in the Amendment proposed by his noble Friend. He thought that from doing so two advantages would result; in the first place, he was of opinion that the adoption of this Amendment would do more than any other measure that could be adopted to calm the public mind, and to show to the people of England (and thereby prevent that which some hon. Members were afraid of—further changes in the constitution of that House) that the House of Commons, constituted as it now was, even under the most unfavourable circum- stances, fairly represented their opinions, and in that way he believed no further change would be asked for. But this was not all; he looked, likewise, to the effect which the Amendment would produce on the composition of the Government. In saying this, he felt called upon to acknowledge that had he thought the necessary effect of carrying the Amendment now proposed would have been to summarily remove the present Administration from office, he should have had a very great doubt and difficulty in acquiescing in it. He felt so strongly the reasons urged by the right hon. Baronet the other night—so strongly the arguments of his noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire—that he confessed he should not have been without very great apprehensions—he was not quite certain that he could have thought himself justified in giving the vote he was about to give, at all events, not without very great apprehensions and difficulty could he have brought his mind to give a vote that would probably be the means of at once dismissing the Ministry; but he did not see that the carrying of the Amendment need necessarily have that effect. Indeed, he had had the satisfaction of hearing from the right hon. Baronet that he took the same view of it, and that even in the event of the Amendment being carried, he would not consider himself compelled to retire from office. He had heard that statement with very great satisfaction, for although he should deprecate, as one of the greatest calamities that could befal this country, the permanent continuance of his Government, he owned he did not participate in the desire expressed by the hon. Member for North Derbyshire, for the formation of a Cabinet in which the extreme opinions expressed by the hon. Members for Bridport and London should have a preponderating influence. Both of those hon. Members he respected in the highest degree, he rejoiced to see them in that House, and upon a great number of occasions he entirely concurred with them, but still they had so expressed themselves in that House, as led him to fear they were disposed to carry their opinions to an extreme length, and to press on with inconsiderate, and he feared dangerous rapidity, the accomplishment of their objects. He would repeat, he did not think he would have voted for this Amendment, had he thought it would have been the means of removing the present Cabinet at once from office; but he thought a most important object would arise from carrying it, in this way, that without producing the summary and unceremonious rejection of the Ministers, it would apprize his Majesty, in a manner the least repugnant to his own feelings, the most respectful on the part of the House, and, at the same time, in language so plain as not to be misunderstood, that in the Cabinet as it was at present composed, that House, and the country which it represented, did not place entire confidence. He begged to correct the expression of entire confidence; he preferred saying that degree of confidence which would enable Ministers to continue in their situation with advantage to the public service. He had now, he believed, explained sufficiently the grounds on which he supported the Amendment, and it only remained, in conclusion, for him to say, that in expressing these opinions, he was aware that he had, perhaps, taken more upon himself than the station he held in that House might be thought to warrant; that it might have been imprudent, for party purposes, it might have been wrong and inexpedient in him to make the declarations he had made, but the crisis in which they were placed was so alarming, it seemed to him to be so full of the greatest and most imminent danger, that no considerations of party interest, no considerations even of individual friendship, could prevent him from expressing the opinions he believed to be just, and that in this crisis it became them, postponing all consideration as to who might be to blame for the state of things which had arisen, to reflect solely upon what was the course which, under all the circumstances, the House was bound to pursue. It was under that impression he had declared the opinions which he had given utterance to, and in them he trusted the House would believe him to be sincere.

Mr. Grove Price

stated, that he considered it to be a matter of great regret, that the noble Lord who had just sat down should feel it his duty to vote against the Address, as well from his high character, as from the opinions he had expressed with reference to the present crisis. He regretted, too, extremely, that any attacks should have been made on the character of an illustrious individual, a Member of the other House, who had rendered such distinguished services to his country. His fame was placed on too high a pedestal to be assailed by that noble Lord. Many hon. Gentlemen had indulged in uncalled-for attacks on that distinguished person, for having, at a moment of emergency, conducted the business of more than one department; but whatever difference of opinion might exist with respect to his holding different offices, he had never heard one word of complaint of the manner in which the noble Duke had conducted the public business. He thought it his duty to vindicate the character of the noble Duke from the attacks made on him by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. That hon. Gentleman had stated, that the funds had fallen one per cent when the right hon. Gentleman, the Speaker was placed in the Chair. The allusion was not one of remarkable delicacy. However hon. Gentlemen might have voted upon that occasion, the moment the selection was made, they only saw in the right hon. Gentleman, the Speaker of the House of Commons. The hon. Member had asked, how much more they would fall when the Marquess of Chandos's Motion for the Repeal of the Malt-tax had been carried? The hon. Member had selected certain persons to fill a number of offices of State, and had named two individuals, and might therefore be said to have forestalled the appointment of the new Cabinet; but those two hon. Gentlemen entertained such extreme opinions as to render it very unfit to allow them to be connected with any Administration. He wished to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the right. hon. Baronet and his present colleagues, while in opposition, acted in a very different way from that pursued by the Members of the late Administration and their friends. The right hon. Baronet was, on all occasions, anxious that the King's Ministers should have a fair trial; but this was refused to himself. He was much surprised to hear the speech of the noble Lord who proposed the Amendment, and he could not help feeling that the latter was proposed like a fine-drawn net to catch a few stray votes. After the violent excitement displayed for some months, by the press and on the hustings, freqently without temper or moderation, and in some instances without either decency or loyalty; he had expected when the Amendment was read, to have heard the Lion roar. The Lion had roared, but like his prototype in the play, "roared as gently as a sucking dove." The noble Lord, in drawing up his Amendment, had taken care to avoid all topics likely to lead to disunion in his own ranks, and only alluded to those points in which the opponents of the present Ministry agreed. He thought that the doctrine which had lately been started, namely, that no man who had opposed a measure involving a change in the constitution of the House, was eligible to take office, was of a most dangerous nature. Was it reasonable to say, that a man, capable of rendering the most important service to the State, should be for ever excluded from serving his Sovereign or country, merely because he had been slow to assent to great change sin the Constitution? A person might entertain a conscientious opinion against a change in the constitution of the House of Commons, and, at the same time, be anxious to promote Reform in other matters. In illustration of this, he would refer to the history of this country, and it would be found, that one of the most extraordinary men of the age in which he lived—the intimate friend of Lord Rockingham, and probably his adviser in many of his most important measures—this man, being the associate of Fox, entertained, the strongest objections to any measure having for its object a change in the constitution of the House; but, at the same time, was one of the most zealous Reformers the country ever produced. That distinguished man brought forward a plan of economical Reform in February, 1780, of a more extensive nature than any submitted to Parliament before or since, which had for its object the consolidation of a number of offices, and the abolition of many others, yet he was never charged by his distinguished Friend, Mr. Fox, or his not less distinguished opponent, Mr. Pitt, with abandoning his principles, when he opposed the plan of Parliamentary Reform, submitted to the House by the latter. The noble Lord, the late Paymaster of the Forces, must, also, be fully aware of the service Burke rendered to the public by the arrangements he introduced into the Pay- office, and which made it, from being one of the worst regulated offices in the public service, one of the best. Would the noble Lord, the late Paymaster of the Forces, reject the valuable assistance of Mr. Windham in the work of judicious improvement? Would the hon. Member for Invernesshire, formerly a member of his Cabinet, spurn from him, in the present juncture, the late Mr. Canning, because he had ever been the uncompromising opponent of Parliamentary Reform, in principle and in detail? After this, he trusted that they would hear no more of a Statesman being an enemy of all Reform, because he felt it his duty to oppose a Measure having for its object an important Constitutional change. Supposing the present Administration to be removed from power, he should like to know who were to be their successors. They would be obliged to select a Cabinet, the Members of which entertained different opinions on the most important points; and, indeed, to such an extent, that it would be impossible for the Government to exist for any time. If the new Government were removed, and the Melbourne Administration, with some of their new allies, succeeded, it would soon appear that the noble Lord had forged new and heavy fetters for himself under harsh and unscrupulous task-masters.

Mr. Thomas S. Duncombe

would not have intruded himself upon the House when so many Members desired to address it, had he not been compelled in consequence of the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, in which, among other things, he stated that the wealth, respectability, and intelligence of the metropolitan districts, as well as of the city of London, were not represented in the present House of Commons. To that assertion, he, as one of the metropolitan Members, rose to give the most unqualified contradiction, and to assure the right hon. Gentleman, that of all the mis-statements he had ever been guilty of, and the number was not small, the one to which he alluded stood the most prominent. He confessed, that when the Reform Bill passed, he expected there would have been an end of those bitter sarcasms which, previous to that event, used to be so constantly levelled against Reformers by the party now in power, and by none of them more incessantly than by the right hon. Gentleman who filled the post of President of the Board of Trade. While the Reform Bill was under discussion, allowance was made for the naturally soured feelings of the right hon. Gentleman when he saw his favourite Callington stealing as it were from under him; but now that the indi- vidual was a Minister of the Crown—now that he was a servant of the public—it was to have been expected that he would have treated the public with some slight respect, and would have refrained from making the unwarrantable assertion, that within these walls, the wealth, respectability, and intelligence of the country were not represented. But how was it—he appealed to the recollection of the House—the right hon. Gentleman illustrated his argument? He said "Look to the city of London; look to the Address, containing 5,000 signatures, voted by that city to the Throne upon the Tories coming into office." Five thousand signatures the Address for aught he knew might have contained; but how were those signatures obtained? It was right that the House should know this; it was right that the Crown through the House should know it. The signatures to the Address had been analysed; and the result of that analysis was the discovery that but four-tenths of them represented the names of electors of the city of London, the remaining six-tenths being composed of the signatures of merchants' clerks, and other parties, whose sole claim to the title of merchants of the city of London consisted in their having passed up Cheapside on their way to the London Tavern to attach their names to the Address. "But," said the right hon. Gentleman, "neither the wealth, intelligence nor respectability of the metropolitan districts is represented in this House." What! was there no wealth in the Bank of England? Few could doubt that. And who was the Governor of the Bank of England? Why, one of the Representatives of the city of London; and yet, notwithstanding that fact, the right hon. Gentleman had the assurance to say that neither the wealth, intelligence, nor respectability of the city of London was represented in the present Parliament. With regard to himself—whom the metropolitan district of Finsbury had deemed proper to send to Parliament, he would only say that, although he might not represent the wealth—the intelligence—or the respectability—of his constituents, he could boast of representing a character which the right hon. Gentleman, albeit all his wealth, intelligence, and respectability, did not and could not represent—that of a consistent politician. He had heard with some surprise the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire declare that he and his friends proposed to support the Government Address; but he (Mr. Duncombe) would not so far trifle with the feelings of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Administration as to congratulate him on the accession of such supporters. The noble Lord when tendering his adhesion to Ministers—and here he might observe that the Speech in the course of which that adhesion was tendered, was altogether favourable to the amendment, against which its framer said he would vote—the noble Lord stated himself to be the oracle of another party within those walls. Now, he maintained that the House was entitled to know of how many and of whom that party so represented consisted. [Loud laughter.] Hon. Members mightlaugh, but, nevertheless, he maintained the House of Commons ought to know if they were to have a representation within a representation, an imperium in imperio, within its walls. Was it possible the right hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland was one of those represented Representatives? Was it within the bounds of credibility that the noble Lord was the organ of a man whom the newspapers alleged to have publicly stated that no Administration could be formed of worse materials than that of the right hon. Baronet, and to have described the Cabinet as composed of men who during their whole lives had opposed good measures and supported bad ones? Again, was it possible that the noble Lord was the organ of the hon. Baronet the Member for Newcastle? If such was the fact, he maintained the constituencies of Cumberland and Newcastle ought in some way to be apprised that their Representatives were represented in that House, not by themselves, but by the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire. He did not mean to say that those constituencies could be better represented than by the noble Lord, but he protested against their time being wasted in the election of persons who, on being sent to that House, were not to exercise their voices. In the good old times of rotten-boroughism it was a constant question, when any political job was being carried on, to ask, "What will they say to this at Cocker-mouth?" Might he not now ask of the hon. Baronet opposite "What will they say to this at Cumberland and Newcastle?" But, he felt satisfied the right hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland wanted no medium through which to convey his sentiments to the House. That hon. Baronet was eloquent at all times, and he was sure he would he so on the present occasion. The simple question to be decided in the approaching division was, first, whether the Reforming party of that House were prepared to maintain within its walls the sentiments they professed out of them; and, secondly, whether the present was a Parliament prepared to succumb to the prejudices of the Peers and the caprices of the Court, or whether, it would carry out the Reform Bill, and maintain the rights and the liberties of the people. The right hon. Baronet opposite seemed to be rather hurt with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, designating the Address a vain and inconclusive document; but what would the right hon. Gentleman say to him when he called up a tissue of unmeaning professions and hypocritical regrets? What did the first paragraph of the Address call upon the House to profess? Why, the hypocritical regret that they joined with his Majesty in deploring the destruction of the two Houses of Parliament. For his part, he did not feel the smallest particle of regret at that event, and he fairly believed not one single Member of that House, aye, not even of those who were going to vote for the Address—differed from him in opinion on the subject. They had been promised that the report should be laid upon the table of that House stating the probable cause of the fire, but he, in common with other Members, would have felt more gratitude to his Majesty had he stated the cause of the removal of those Members who used the House. But it appeared they must be content when they were told that the last House of Commons was dissolved by a legitimate exercise of the prerogative. With regard to the other regrets that Ministers had placed in the mouth of his Majesty the affairs of Holland and Belgium stood foremost. But he would remind the House that the differences existing between those rival Powers arose when hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House were administering the Government of this country. Another portion of the Address alluded to the local burthens of the agriculturist. And here the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, and the mover of the Address to the Crown, appeared to be sadly puzzled. He had not been let into the secret of what those local burthens were, and seemed to be amazingly in the dark as to the intentions of Ministers with regard to their removal, he having mentioned nothing of any plan by which they were to be transferred to any other description of property. They ought to be told what the changes were that were in contemplation. Would the right hon. President of the Board of Trade explain to him the meaning of the following paragraph of the King's Speech, "I rely also with equal confidence on the caution and circumspection with which you will apply yourselves to the alteration of laws which affect very extensive and complicated interests, and are interwoven with ancient usages to which the habits and feelings of my people have conformed?" Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who was Paymaster of the Forces would state what these laws were. Did the passage refer to Corporations? Certainly, the people had conformed to them; but in doing so, their feelings had unfortunately been repeatedly outraged. If he had allowed personal considerations to sway him at the present period, he should certainly have given his vote on the question of the appointment of a Speaker in favour of the right hon. Member for Cambridge. The course he took, however, was dictated by an imperative sense of public duty. To designate that course factious, was to describe it most unjustly. He should vote for the Amendment.

Mr. Baring

rose to explain: he said he had been charged by the hon. Member who spoke last, with having spoken of his constituency with disrespect; but, he begged to say, that he made no observation on his borough of Finsbury. What he did say was this—and it was not in any argument of his provoking, but in answer to remarks that had been made by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets,—that hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government had against them all the wealth and respectability of the metropolis, to which he replied, that though, undoubtedly, those hon. Members who had been returned for the Metropolitan districts, were seated constitutionally by the numbers entitled to send them to the House, still the petition sent up to the Throne, signed as he knew it to have been signed, did prove that as large a portion of the wealth and respectability of the city of London had expressed confidence in his Majesty's Government. He begged to assure the hon. Gentleman, that he did not venture to criticise, in the slightest degree, the acknowledged taste and discrimination of the electors of the borough of Finsbury.

Sir James Graham

said, that nothing had been further from his intention in coming down to the House, than to obtrude himself upon its attention on the present occasion; indeed, suffering under very acute pain and general indisposition, which would in ordinary circumstances, have prevented his attendance in that place, he certainly should not have taken any part in the discussion had he not been personally alluded to by the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Gisborne), with regard to something which he was reported to have lately addressed to his constituents, and also more directly by the hon. Member for Finsbury, who had just sat down. Under these circumstances, he should fail in the duty he owed to the House, to himself, and his constituents, if he did not rise and vindicate in his place what he was represented to have said. He was quite prepared to act up to what he had told his constituents at the late election would be his conduct in the trying circumstances in which his Majesty and the country were now placed. It having been his misfortune towards the close of last Session, from a painful sense of duty on a question of principle, to separate himself for the time from those with whom he had acted ever since he took a part in public affairs, it was necessary that he should explicitly state to those constituents what had been the motives of his past conduct, and what were the principles by which he should regulate his conduct in the present Session. He need not tell the House, that having for eighteen years uniformly acted as a party man, having felt during that time the strongest personal attachments, and never having deviated from party consistency,—respecting, revering, as he did, many Gentlemen he saw opposite, occupying the Bench where he used to sit, it was impossible to find terms wherewith adequately to express the pain with which he had separated from them. It was some consolation, that there were Gentlemen with whom he had acted during a portion of that time who still coincided with him in opinion; yet, having that consolation, he was sincere when he said, that his respect for many of the leaders of the old Whig party remained un- abated; and it was with pleasure which he could not describe that he heard the true old principles of that party announced the other evening in the admirable speech of the noble Lord (Lord Morpeth), who moved the Amendment, and also in some parts of the speech delivered by the noble Lord, the Member for the county of Northumberland (Lord Howick), which, in talent and independence of spirit was not unworthy of that great, high-minded and venerated, nobleman, with whom the noble Lord was so closely connected. He agreed with that noble Lord, more particularly with respect to his Majesty's present Government; and with him he was bound to declare, that in the head of that Government, he had much greater confidence than in any of the other Members composing the Administration. Entertaining, then, the opinions which on that and on other occasions he had frankly avowed, there would obviously be great inconsistency in his voting for the Amendment of the noble Lord. Considering the effect of his vote—considering the probable consequences of the present Government being a second time in one week left in a minority, he should long hesitate before he gave his support to the Amendment of the noble Lord. If he could agree, that the overthrow of the Administration would not be the consequence of adopting the Amendment, he might be disposed in some respects to qualify his support of the Address. Looking at the Speech from the Throne, and referring to that portion of it which related to the subject of Corporation Reform, he felt perfectly ready to admit, that upon that topic the public mind was completely made up. The question of Corporate Reform divided itself naturally into two parts—the one relating to the application of trust property, the other, the mode of appointment of those by whom the affairs of the several Corporations were conducted. The former he admitted was a question of considerable nicety, but on the other nothing would have been easier than for his Majesty's Ministers to have stated their views at once in a manner short, clear, and perspicuous. At present the governing party in the corporations were self-elected; the people desired, that the mode of their election should be popular, and as the public mind was evidently made up on that subject, it became with him, in reference to this point at all events, a matter of entire indifference who were, or who were not, the Ministers of the Crown; for, whoever might be Minister, a removal from our Municipal Corporations of the vice of self-election was, in his opinion, a matter fully and completely decided. Had an Amendment been moved, which simply involved the assertion of that proposition, he should not be indisposed to give such an Amendment his support; but he was opposed, and should remain adverse, to supporting any vague rambling addition to the Address, which might have the effect of placing the present Administration in a minority, under circumstances which must put to hazard their continued existence. It was his misfortune not to have been able to place confidence in the Administration of Lord Melbourne; the present Government, had made large and ample promises of liberal measures, and he would maintain that they possessed greater facilities, and more extended means of carrying such measures into full effect than any Ministry, the formation of which he could now contemplate. The declarations which he made in relation to the support, or the opposition to any Government amounted to this, that he had pledged himself, that he would vote against any Motion having a factious tendency. It was the duty of the Administration to produce their measures, but was it not in fairness the duty of the House to abstain from striking without hearing them, and would it not be still more unjust to strike for the purpose of preventing their being heard? That was the position with which he set out, and to that he was prepared to adhere. There were large promises contained in the King's Speech. He thought the promises large, though the terms in which they were conveyed, might be somewhat vague; but the vagueness of the terms did by no means contradict the assertion he had made—namely, that the promises were in themselves satisfactory and ample. Now, he wished to put those promises to the test, for he fully believed, that the measures of which expectations had been held out would be produced, and would soon be produced; for, with the exception of Corporation Reform, which exception he regarded with somewhat of a jealous eye, it appeared to him and he did fully believe, that on the whole the measures of the Ministry would prove satisfactory. On the occasion, to which reference had been so often made, he had expressed want of confidence in persons from whom it had been his misfortune to differ throughout his political life. All he said in effect was this, that if they proved to be a Government acting upon principles such as he could conscientiously support, no personal considerations should induce him to withhold that support, and in the strongest terms did he then, as now, protest against a factious opposition. He declared his determination, and by that he would abide, to put the present Ministers on their trial, and that he was disposed to do without favour or affection. For all this he was anxious, because he had a strong conviction, that the measures to be anticipated from them would be productive of substantial amelioration. He was anxious to give them, if they proved true to their declarations, the advantage of bringing in measures in the results of which he reposed large confidence. The hon. Member for Derbyshire supposed the speech which he (Sir James Graham) had delivered in Cumberland—

Mr. Gisborne

said, that the words of the right hon. Baronet, which he had quoted, were these—"that in his (Sir James Graham's) opinion, the present Administration was composed of the very worst possible materials—of men who had spent their entire lives in promoting bad Government, and opposing good."

Sir James Graham

resumed. What he said was, the Government was now formed of men to whom, and to whose measures, he had all his life been opposed; that in such an Administration he could not place unlimited confidence; but that, not seeing his way to the formation of a better, he was resolved to resist any factious Motion, the tendency of which might be to displace such an Administration as was then formed. Such were the sentiments he expressed in Cumberland, and by those he was prepared to abide. He had that night come down to the House at great personal inconvenience, to explain the grounds upon which he was prepared to oppose the Amendment; it still remained for him to notice the point to which he wished more particularly to refer—he wished to give the most direct contradiction possible to a rumour which had been recently set afloat. The propagation of such rumours might form part of the new tactics of opposition—such might be the tactics of an opposition, which he could no otherwise describe than as a Babel opposition in which were heard the many tongues—the discordant language of the new and old Whig—of the Moderate and Ultra—of the Radical and the Repealer. If other motives were wanting, the mere existence of such coalitions would induce him to declare, that he was not prepared to unite with such opponents of such an Administration. "Non hœn in Fœdera veni." But to return to the rumours of which he had been speaking. Those seeds, when once sown, often rose and spread to a formidable extent. They might be cast by the way side, but they nevertheless occasionally germinated, and even produced fruit; he was, therefore, anxious in the most positive manner to deny that, directly, or indirectly, he, or any Gentleman included within that section of the House, had received any communication from his Majesty's Government. Not only had no communication been received from the Government, but none had been tendered by him, or by any of those with whom he was in communication. If any further explanation were thought necessary, he was then prepared to offer it. It had been sneeringly said, that some Members would act conscientiously. Was it thought, when the fate of the country was suspended in the balance, that men would consider mere party attachments as paramount to every thing? Might not independent support be given without unlimited confidence?

Mr. O'Connell

spoke as follows:—Sir, it appears to me that if there be a factious Opposition, there is also such a thing as factious support. There has been a coalition adverted to on the one side, and there may be a coalition of excessively bad materials, equally deserving of ridicule or reprobation, on the other. I assure the House, that I feel sincere regret that it is my duty to trespass on them at all on this occasion; and if I could reconcile it to my sense of the duty I owe to my unfortunate and neglected country. [Laughter.] Oh! I perceive the quarter from whence that laughter proceeds, and I am perfectly, and with the utmost good humour, ready to bear any interruption from that quarter. Would to God the unfortunate inhabitants of my country had nothing to bear from that quarter but the slight incivility of such interruptions. I do repeat that I unaffectedly regret the being compelled to trespass on the House at this late period of the discussion, when every man who rises must be aware that this subject, and every topic connected with it has already been completely exhausted. But then I may confidently appeal to all who hear me, whether they would not think me shrinking from the performance of my duty if I did not, even at this time, offer some observations to the House. I have been personally assailed. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) has produced a letter written by me, an humble individual, and has made what I consider to be an illegitimate use of that document. It would seem that he had taken my consistency into his holy keeping; he has said that we belong to that party whose cry is measures, not men. Yet he would be angry with me because I show a greater attachment to measures than to men.—Then the hon. Member for Tamworth got me in at the end of his discourse for the mere purpose of raising a cheer at my expense. He accused me of being a dangerous individual. Now, I will not return the compliment. I do not think him at all dangerous. He threw out a great deal more of insinuation against me;—In return I will implore him only not to follow the example, the bad example, of the class of men whom he ought to despise—that class who indulge themselves in circulating slanders through the press, and who, with an appearance of independence, are the most servile of slaves. I feel myself, therefore, bound to address the House even in my own vindication; but that address will also relate to matters infinitely beyond anything connected with myself. When the interests of this country is so much at stake—when parties are so much divided—when patriotism has the support of Whigs so conservative and wavering, and the Government so weak and so extraordinary, what is my first duty? It is, to remind the House of what really is the question before it. The question is not of any particular section or party: it is the great question resulting from the effects of that constitutional revolution which took away the power of that majority of this House—from that corrupt, small, rotten-borough, and oligarchical majority, and gave it to the people—for the purpose not of conceding the Reform with that measure, but of rendering it subservient to the amelioration of all our institutions, and to the improvement of everything good, and the destruction of everything bad, in those institutions. A Parliament has been elected, and a Government appointed to meet that Parliament. The question now is, whether that Government comes with such promises and pledges as ought to be received by them. It has been told to the House in an Address proposed to the Throne, and those promises and pledges were such as Reform Members could hold out to the country; and, on the other hand, it is said, if the intention to effect these improvements really exists, there ought to be something added to the Address of a more explicit character. Will the people of England be satisfied with these declarations? Will the people of Scotland? I need not ask as to the people of Ireland; for one contemptuous sentence is the only reply they would make to the appeal.—What cares the country for the small negotiations and arrangements between parties? The question is not whether a good speech has been made, or a pleasing case of opposition substantiated; but what the answer to the King's Speech would be, if it were made by the country at large. The country requires substantial Reform; the Address is a mere mouthful of moonshine, promising little to England, less to Scotland, and nothing at all to Ireland. I will not, at this late hour, travel through a catalogue raisonnée of the different species of support which the Address has received. I will take only three or four of them. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon), after speaking of the number of his immaculate constituents—the boast of which came exceedingly well from him who defended the immaculate purity of that constituency, doubtless with a most conscientious feeling that noble Lord put the case on the point of confidence, and laboured hard to prove that the present Administration was quite as good as Lord Melbourne's Administration—in all its measures quite as useful to the country. Why, that noble Lord himself opposed the Melbourne Administration, which he now regards as the beau idéal of the perfection of the present Administration. I find nothing, therefore, in his argument to induce me to confide in the vagueness of the Address in reply to the Speech. The noble Lord was followed, after a short interval, by one of that party who hate cabals, who are so perfectly consistent—I mean the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Richards). He supported this address because he is a thorough Reformer; he is so true a Reformer that he has actually reformed himself, and reformed himself by the most extraordinary logical process which I ever heard of. It is this: "I am," he says," a true Reformer; I voted for the Ballot and for the shortening of Parliaments; the Whigs opposed these measures, and were supported in their opposition by the Members of the present Administration: therefore I transfer my allegiance from the Whigs to the present Administration." The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Robinson) followed in the same style; I must confess that was for some time at a loss to know what was the meaning of his speech and his vote. I discovered it, however, before he proceeded far: he told us that a majority of his constituents were anti-Tories, and that the minority—all respectable men—were, on the other hand, Tories; and having thus a divided constituency, he, with the utmost impartiality, divided his conduct, and gave to the anti-Tories his valueless speech, and to the Tories his valuable vote. His name, accordingly, with that of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland (Sir James Graham) will count in his "lists of the division to-morrow"—he will have him in "that section of the House." What are we to call that section of the House to which the right hon. Baronet alluded, and over which the noble Lord (Stanley) presides? It is not a party—that he denies; it is not a faction—that would be a harsher title. I will give it a name—we ought to call it the tail. How delightful would it be to see it walking in St. James's-street to-morrow—to see the noble Lord strutting proudly, with his sequents behind him, and with a smile passing over his countenance—something like, as Curran said, "a silver plate on a coffin," while the right hon. member for Cumberland made one of its lustiest links—not held by the Cockermouth crutch, but supported by his detestation of all coalition. Yes, Sir, this is the ludicrous combination of supports by which the right hon. Baronet is this night to be saved. How is he to be saved? By the Tories? Oh no! By the Whigs? Oh no! the genuine Whigs have not gone over yet. Whatever becomes of speculation for places where no negotiation has as yet been entered into—whatever becomes of future prospects, of difficulties got over and subdued, of kindness thrown out, and courtesies offered, and protection held over these unfortunate orphans,—the Ministers as we call them—whatever becomes of their party, the true Whig, the true Reformer, the true friend of liberty will stand firm; and I doubt much that the right hon. Baronet's protection, with that of his noble Friend the noble Lord, and the sequents which he may carry with him, will avail those over whom it is extended:— Down thy bill, romantic Ashbourne, glides The Derby dilly, with his six insides. Sir, it is quite consistent with the genius and disposition of my country to mix merriment with woe; the sound of laughter is often heard while the heart is wrung with bitter anguish, and the tear of sorrow dims the check. I have been led, in the spirit of this consistency, to mingle mirth with melancholy in speaking of the coalition of which we hear so much—this coalition of those who detest coalitions—this desertion from the cause of the country on the part of a set of nominal patriots and would-be ministers. How many embryo Lords of the Treasury see I not before me—how many Commissioners of the Board of Control—how many Lords of the Admiralty—how many Presidents of the Board of Trade? Quite enough of them to make an Administration. And the only difference between such a one and the present Administration would be, that it would not be so confident of the favour of the Court, or of the favour of the Conservatives. Though it would not have the support of the people, it would be a Ministry, mighty in imagination. But God forbid that the destinies of this country should be intrusted to men who know not themselves, and who stand firm to nobody! I turn now to the speech, and ask, as a Reformer, what have you promised for England, for Scotland, and for Ireland? You admit it to be a vague and general composition—and I ask why, at such a moment, is it vague and general? It is said, that you want a fair trial. Are you such novices in public life, that the public do not know what you are? Is the defence you seek to be allowed, your first, that you should so loudly require a fair trial? You may, perhaps, resort to an alibi on the defence; but character certainly cannot avail you. A fair trial! Why, since you first appeared on the public stage, you have been under trial; you have been repeatedly condemned; the public have repeatedly indicted and convicted you; convicted you of resisting every solid and substantial good, and supporting every abuse and corruption—not which you recognised and admitted as such at that time, but which you recognize and admit at the present. You stood by Old Sarum and Gatton to the last. You declared that the old corrupt Parliament of the nominees of the oligarchy was, not only an useful and salutary system, but the actual perfection—the beau idéal of all constitutions, which no man, à priori, could have framed by any force of intellect, and to which the wisdom of our ancestors alone had given such a smack of perfection as no human ingenuity could have imparted to any system which it framed, was not this the opinion expressed by the noble Duke, the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs—him who sat upon you for three weeks, and then hatched you? The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, said, that he would not convict the present Ministers before he had heard them. Was not the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) heard at full length, both for himself and his cause, the other night? He and his party have been indicted by the country, and convicted of their misdeeds; they obtained this opportunity of vindicating themselves. Before Parliament met, the cry was, "wait till you see the King's Speech." When that came, it was, "Wait till you hear the right hon. Baronet's explanation." I take them both together, and I ask, can any honest and conscientious man, giving the Ministers what they ask, a fair trial, find a verdict in their favour? The right hon. Baronet, with that simplicity that becomes him, says, he does not understand what is the meaning of "the principles of the Reform Bill." If he does not, it is no small disparagement to his fitness for carrying that Bill into execution. Let me, however, referring more directly to the contents of the Speech, ask him, in the name of England, whether he has promised anything in the Address, or in the Speech with which the people of England ought to be satisfied? The Speech recognises, though in rather fan- tastical phrase, the distress prevailing among the agricultural interest. "I deeply lament," says his Majesty, "that the agricultural interest continues in a state of great depression." Was it intended to confine that sentence to England? I suppose not; there is agricultural distress in Scotland, and there is agricultural distress, with doubly combined force, in Ireland. What do you propose to do for it, let me ask his Majesty's present Ministers? You are the patrons of that interest—at least, the right hon. President of the Board of Trade is so; he represents a county now—and accordingly he patronizes the agricultural interest; he represented a borough before, and he then, like his borough, was entirely in favour of the commercial interest. I think there was something like a scramble for getting at the Malt-tax, although I admit, indeed, that it would be a substantial relief. But you talk of equalizing the local charges which bear heavily on the landed interest. Many of you got into this House by persuading the agricultural interest that it was your intention to relieve them. How many a speech have I read—for, Heaven help me, I read speeches as well as make them!—which thundered out on the unfortunate Whigs all their guilt in neglecting the agricultural interest—every thing else, it was said, they had attended to but the agricultural interest; and you were pointed out as its especial protectors, you got many returned on the ground of your intention to protect it. I heard the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Greisley) boast that he was the protector of the agricultural interest. I ask him, is he content with the promises in that part of the Speech which relates to the agricultural interest? [Sir R. Greisley—"No."] I am much obliged to the hon. baronet for his admission. I ask, then, is it to the paltry, pitiful management of some local burdens affecting England only, that it is to he conceded? Do you imagine that the people of England are so senseless—that the farmers of England who certainly have not the opportunity of a daily recurrence to the ordinary vehicles of intelligence, are so stultified, so beastly, as not to understand that you are practising a delusion on them; that while you promise them protection you yield to them the paltry reduction of local taxation? I am glad, however, that the hon. Baronet will support the proposition for the repeal of the Malt-tax. I rejoice that I have his vote promised. Will the section support us in that question? Shall we go tail-to-tail in support of the repeal? You have then, the Malt-tax before you; you have the agricultural interest also in your front; you have 'the tail' deserting, and the country which you have deluded exclaiming against you. In such a state of things, but one result must take place. Yet I must say, I think it would be much better that you should go out gradually: one single puff may leave an unsavory smell behind it. If you go out by degrees, some other tapers may be lit to enlighten and warm the political atmosphere, and make it healthful for freemen to breathe. I have now done with the agricultural interest; I make you a present of the impression which you will make on the country with your promised relief from local burthens. I remind you, however, that in this instance, Scotland gets nothing. As to Ireland, you have left that country to its old taskmasters. You did not think of her at all; she is to have none of the agricultural benefit. We come to the next branch of these mightypromises—these great majestic works which arc foretold—and here is a high-sounding one, in which we are told to promote a Commutation of Tithes in England and Wales. A Commutation of Tithes sounds well. It may be an excellently good thing. It may also, and I know it has, aggravated the evil. It gives most formidable advantages to the clergyman. It puts him in before the landlord —it gives him a mercenary power of executions, of entering, distraining, and selling—there can be no parleying here—the sum is ascertained and it must be paid—the law admits of no delay—the remedy is prompt and efficacious for the clergyman—the mode of obtaining any relief on the other hand is more distant and doubtful. Why do I canvass this? Because I have seen the system in operation in the strongest point of view. I tell the landed gentry of England not to confide in any explanations which you may make of your promises. If you give to England such a tithe commutation as you gave to Ireland, you will only be aggravating the existing evil; as to the rest of what you propose for England, it consists simply of matters of course—There is something said about Ecclesiastical discipline. I thought to have passed over that subject as foreign to my purposes; but the right hon. Baronet will not allow me, because he has said, that the object of the proposed alteration was to give increased jurisdiction to the bishops over the clergy. Now, as far as that is confined to the mere spiritual point of view, I leave it entirely to you—it is your affair and not mine; but if it be your intention to do what you have done in Ireland, to make the bishop perfectly despotic over the local clergy—to give him an iron power of restriction—to increase that authority, which will now be introduced to punish the clergyman who has taken part against him who has exerted himself on their behalf, then it becomes a question with which I have to interfere. I ask the House, however, to consider what are these boons, which the Government hold out to the country—boons with which they fascinate the waverers and eclipse the deeds of the very administration that were before them, and caused themselves to be recognised as the benefactors of the nation. You have given nothing to Scotland but the building of new churches for her. Why could she not build churches for herself? Even poorer people than those of Scotland build them without coming to you for assistance. I know instances in my own parish in which 12,300l. was paid in two years and a half, in which the edifice was erected and rendered fit for divine service without costing the country one single penny. Therefore I say to our Scotch friends, with all respect, build churches for yourselves. I now come to that part of the matter which presses on myself more closely, and which is most interesting to me. I say now to the present Administration, you are restored to power in Ireland, and what are you to do? Who are your allies in Ireland? Is there a man amongst you who ever distinguished himself by a high and haughty, or truculent and persevering animosity to the Catholic people of that country that is not rallied around you? Is it true—if it be not, I should be glad to have it contradicted—that the grand master of the Orange lodge was offered the place of steward of the house-hold or some such office, which he had the delicacy to refuse? If it be untrue, my observations do not apply; if it be true, what is that country to think? I heard an exposition of Orangeism thrown out by the hon. Member for Sligo. I tell them that the Orange lodges are illegal. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that no society is illegal but one bound to- gather by an oath. We even read in the newspapers every day that some Orangemen have been sworn in; but I stand not on that ground: I ask you, is there not a declaration made by every man who becomes an Orangeman to this effect, that he is a Protestant? and is there not a test by which they are known to each other, and which is kept secret? Now any society which has an oath, or declaration, or a test, is illegal, by the very words of the Act of Parliament. After emancipation what is the meaning of an Orange society? Does the House understand that it is an exclusive society? No Roman Catholic whatever can be a Member of it. What is the meaning of that exclusion? Is it not the assertion of some superiority of faculty, or intellect, or station? Good heaven! if ever there were a country on the face of the earth in which such a society, supposing it legal, should be suffered to take its station among the paltry prejudices and vulgar practices of the lower classes, what is the utmost latitude that ought to be allowed to it? Toleration, manifestly—a mere freedom from persecution. But I put it to the House, is it not too bad to have Ireland in this situation, that all the instruments of Government are to be, if not selected from that party, at least nominated by its confidential advisers? I do not wish to speak with any harshness on this subject, but I have heard the cry of exultation—I saw the triumph—I marked the altered mien—I perceived the wall of separation being raised between Catholic and Protestant more and more every day since the present Government came into office. You appointed the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn) Secretary of State for the Home Department. Did the Dissenters of England understand that? Certainly the Catholics of Ireland understood it well. At the time of the Union, Lord Clare, and every one else who spoke on the subject—while they proclaimed that up to that period a faction had governed Ireland—promised a millenium for the future, foretold that the Irish would be amalgamated with the rest of the people of these kingdoms—that no distinction should hereafter exist, except that between good and bad subjects. I ask you whether, if any class in this country, the Dissenters, for instance, were to form lodges, in which no Protestant of the Established Church was admitted, and if that party was supported by the Government—I say, I ask, would the Protestants of England endure such a Government? Were a similar course pursued in Scotland, would the Presbyterians of that country quietly submit to it? But the things of which I complain have been done in Ireland, and there you feel yourselves at liberty to act as you please. With reference to the appointments which you have made in that country, you have named for Chancellor a man who rose from an humble rank in society by the force of a greater genius in his own peculiar profession than has been possessed by any man whom I ever witnessed—who had more knowledge of the business of that profession, and more capability of applying that knowledge, than any one I ever knew—you have appointed that man your Chancellor,—an admirable lawyer, a legal tradesman, but nothing more. Do I condemn that appointment? There is no one who can praise it more as a legal one. But has not that individual been mixing himself already with Members of the Crooked-building, with the guild of merchants, boasting that he belonged to the same class with them? But suppose that, instead of having sent him—suppose, instead of having sent a man who had risen by force of talent, you had sent one who was thrust into that situation solely by the interest of his family—such a one as, if you had made him a judge in this country, you would have promoted simply to the post of puisne judge of the Court of Exchequer, where the Judges were occupied one hour and idle for the whole week—suppose that you had appointed an individual who, for twenty-five years, were to remain Chancellor of Ireland, and whose decrees, on appeal, were reversed, if not in the proportion of fifty per centat least, not far short of ten out of twenty. Suppose that for five-and-twenty years such a Chancellor were inflicted upon Ireland, and that, notwithstanding every representation, no redress could he obtained against such a grievance. Yet, that was precisely the state of things when the Tories were formerly in power. Suppose, again, that an individual were placed in the situation of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in Ireland, who ought never to have been on the Bench at all; an individual who, by his conduct, turned justice itself into ridicule. Yet that party is now in power by whom the continuance of such a Judge for a long term of years was sanctioned, and by whom, when at length he was removed on petition, a peerage and other advantages were conferred on him. ["No, no?"] I do not speak precisely of the individuals at present in power, but of the system of corruption which their principles tend to support. In all respects that system has ever been one of the most base and infamous description. It is a well known fact, that during the whole time that the notorious Leonard M'Nally was employed, especially as counsel for persons in Ireland charged with offences against the State, he was a pensioner of the Government, and that in less than half an hour after a consultation on the part of the friends of the accused as to the best mode of defence, everything which passed at that consultation was communicated to the Castle. All this took place under a Tory Administration; and ought not the people of Ireland to tremble at the return of a Tory Administration to power? At this late hour I will not enter into details, but I implore the House to look at the wretched condition of the Irish people, and to ask themselves if they will contribute to the continuance of a Government the principles of which are calculated to perpetuate that misery? The right hon. Gentleman did me the honour to read some passages from a letter of mine to a noble Lord. It is unpleasant for a man to read his own compositions; but I feel it due to myself and to my friends to read some other passages. That letter was addressed to a nobleman, a Member of the late Government, whom I always highly respected, and with whose friendship I am proud to boast, that I am honoured. It contained an opinion on several of the proceedings of the late Government, whose great fault, above all, I told that noble Lord, appeared to me to be that they had appointed an Attorney-General for Ireland out of the ranks of the enemy. The answer was, that the individual in question was one of the most liberal of Liberals; that he was, in fact, overflowing with liberality. Yet there sits the hon., or, I should rather say, the right hon. Gentleman. The Chinese call an officer of the Government an eye, and they call an officer of a foreign Government a barbarian eye. Many a barbarian eye has been in Ireland, looking at the condition of that country with distorted vision; and misrepresenting that condition to men such as the present Chief Secretary—men of honourable and chivalrous minds; for a braver soldier or a more honourable man than that right hon. Gentleman never lived. [Calls of "Question"] I am not surprised that the House should be impatient; but I am stating the unfortunate case of Ireland, and the miseries which she is enduring, and I said that I owed it to myself and to my friends to read some passages in my letter to a noble Lord, and I will now do so. [The hon. and learned Gentleman here read some passages from his letter to Lord Duncannon.] With respect to the manner in which Juries were managed in Ireland, I will appeal to letters which have appeared in the public prints, from William Ford and Charles Henry Grady; I appeal to the hon. Member for Kildare—I appeal to the hon. Member for Cashel. The Speech from the Throne alludes, in the strongest terms, to the Tithe Question in Ireland. It states that there are many important subjects, an adjustment of which, at as early a period as is consistent with the mature consideration of them, would be of great advantage to the public interests; and that among the first, in point of urgency, is the state of the Tithe Question in Ireland, and the means of effecting an equitable and final adjustment of it. What do the Government mean by final adjustment? Do they mean to render the Tithe system in Ireland less burdensome to the agriculture of the country? No! Do they mean to alter the destination of the Church revenues in Ireland? No! Do they mean to abstain, in a country essentially Catholic, from applying funds derived from the whole population to the exclusive use of the Protestant portion of the community? No! Fifty such final adjustments as the present Government intend to propose have already been ineffectually attempted. Not the slightest prospect of a real and bona fide final adjustment of the tithe question is held out in the Speech or the Address. And yet, for fifty years, all the disturbances in Ireland have been more or less connected with the existing Tithe system. Then, with respect to the Reform of Municipal Corporations, does the Speech hold out any hope of speedy and effective measures on that subject? Far from it. All distinct declaration respecting it is avoided, on the poor pretext that the Report of the Com- missioners has not yet been received. Does his Majesty's Government want the Report of the Commissioners to inform them that the existing Corporation system is unjust, oligarchical, and corrupt? Did they never hear of the Corporation of Leicester? Did they never hear of the Corporation of Bath? Did they never hear of the Corporation of Dublin? It is well known that the maintenance of Orange power in Ireland depends on the continuance of the Corporation system. In the absence of a Parliament in Ireland the Corporation of Dublin has assumed the most extravagant and unjustifiable powers. It is enough to show the character of that Corporation to state, that, although since the year 1792, Catholics have been eligible to admission into that Corporation, not a single Catholic has, during that long period, been admitted. I trust that, on these points, at least, whatever may be the fate of the question immediately before us, some notice may be introduced into the address on the Report, some pledge that this House will interpose, and, by an effectual Corporate Reform, defeat the machinations of faction in Ireland. That the Orange faction is most injurious in Ireland, no honourable man will deny; and I am sure I may confidently appeal to the hon. Member for Coleraine, to say what an Orange mob is in the north of that country. Am I wrong in apprehending that the present Government will give every possible aid to the Orange faction in Ireland? Are they not filling the Bench with Tory Barristers? Have not the Members of the Government been distinguished throughout life by their unrelenting opposition to Catholics, and by their hostility to the just claims of the Irish people? I will now conclude; for I shall have an opportunity of making some further observations on the bringing up of the Report. I feel that my country will not receive justice at the hands of the present Administration. Their accession to power has palsied the cause of freedom throughout Europe. There is not an oppressor of his people, there is not a tyrant, who was not delighted with it. There is not an oppressed individual, there is not a struggler against tyranny, who did not hear of it with dismay ["No! No!"] I say, "Yes! yes!" In Portugal, in Russia, the friends of absolute authority were all rejoiced at the occurrence. The Polish mothers will now be allowed to weep and wail, without any interposition on our part, lest the delicacy of the Russian Autocrat should be offended. The friends of liberty over the whole globe will "hide their diminished heads," and the enemies of liberty will exult. I and my friends have been taunted by the Gentlemen opposite, who have characterised our union with the Whigs as a rope of sand, and who have predicted that, although I now support the Whigs, should the Whigs come into power I shall withdraw that support, and call for a Repeal of the Union. They are mistaken. All I shall call upon the Whigs to do when they return to power will be, first, to amend the Reform Bill, correcting its machinery in such a manner as to render it as effective in Ireland as it is in England; secondly, after providing sufficiently for the temporal and spiritual wants of the Protestant Church in Ireland, to apply the surplus of the Ecclesiastical revenue in that country to purposes of religion and charity, as specified in the measure of my noble Friend near me; and thirdly, and lastly, to introduce a thorough Reform in the Corporations of the country, so as to place them under popular control. Such are the measures which, let who will be in or out of office, shall have my support. If I am asked whether I mean to propose the Repeal of the Union, my answer is, that I will suspend that operation should the three measures which I have described be carried into effect, in order to see what may be their result; and that, if they should fail in producing the beneficial results which may justly be expected from them, I will then propose the Repeal of the Union. Repealers and Radicals have been charged with coalition. Why have they so coalesced? Because the liberties of the country are in danger. Let the country reflect on the efforts made by the friends of the present Government during the late election. If, on the one side, were placed the profit which they had gained by the immense and profligate waste of money, and, on the other, the loss which the cause of religion had sustained, I put it to the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, whose powers of calculation are so well known, to say, if a worse bargain could possibly have been made.

Mr. Baring

was at a loss to know why the hon. Gentleman applied this observation to him personally.

Mr. O'Connell

How is it possible that the right hon. Gentleman can suppose that I meant to make any improper allusion to him? I was merely speaking of his ability in matters of finance. I do not mean to say, that the right hon. Gentleman has ever heard of these malpractices; still less do I accuse him of participation in them. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman has not heard of them before, he has heard of them now; and no man in this House will venture to deny the truth of his charges. I have done. I know that I have been compelled in the course of my address, to introduce irritating topics, and raise unpleasant feelings; but if the things I have uttered are unpleasant to hon. Members to hear, what must be the feelings they excite in the breasts of those who are doomed to witness and suffer from them? Let the House not think that it is my wont or pleasure to assail the defenceless, or make sport with the character of the stainless and innocent; but I ever will denounce a Government which supports, and is itself upheld by, a faction condemned by the spirit of laws proposed by themselves.

Mr. Shaw

observed, that it was not his intention to detain the House many minutes. Without meaning the slightest disrespect to the hon. and learned Memtleman who had just sat down, without intending to disparage his great talents, or deny his general power to make an impression upon the House, he must plainly and in perfect sincerity tell him that his speech upon this occasion was an utter failure, and that he had made no impression whatever upon the House that night. He understood that he should have an an opportunity upon the bringing up of the Report to make a few observations. He was in that House as an independent Member of the United Parliament, pledged by his feelings and his duty to apply himself to the promotion of the common interests of the United Empire. Upon the bringing up of the Report he hoped to be able to show who it was that kept alive the spirit of faction in Ireland; for whose pleasure and to whose profit that spirit was kept up there. He had but one word more, which he believed the house would be glad to hear; it was, that amongst the moderate men of all parties and politics—and he was happy to add, of all religions in Ireland, there existed a strong desire to get rid of that odious system of agita- tion of which all were weary, and which had so long interrupted all the relations of civilized and social life in that unhappy country.

Mr. O'Dwyer,

amidst the strongest manifestations of impatience, persisted in demanding a hearing. The hon. Member was understood to complain of the language used by the last speaker towards his hon. and learned Friend who had just left the House (Mr. O'Connell). He had assailed his hon. and learned Friend as an agitator. He was an agitator; but it was for the liberties of his country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) was himself an agitator; but he made his agitation auxiliary to his personal profit and honour. It was agitation that made him a Member of Parliament—it was agitation, in like manner, that had made him a Privy Councillor—and from the same fertile source the right hon. and learned Gentleman had reaped honours which had, in his case, been squandered and alienated from their right channel as the reward of public services. He warned the right hon. and learned gentleman, that he was opposing himself to a power which he would find too strong for him.

The House divided on the original Question: Ayes, 302; Noes, 309—Majority for the Amendment, 7.

List of the AYES.
Agnew, Sir A. Bart. Boldero, H. G.
Alford, Lord Bolling, W.
Alsager, R. Bonham, F. R.
Arbuthnot, Hon. H. Borthwick, P.
Archdall, M. junr. Bradshaw, J.
Ashley, Lord Bramston, T. W.
Ashley, Hon. H. Bruce, Lord E.A.,C.B.
Attwood, M. Bruce, C. L. C.
Bagot, Hon. W. Brudenell, Lord
Bailey, J. Bruen, Colonel
Baillie, Col. Bruen, F.
Balfour, J. Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.
Barclay, D. Buller, Sir J. B. Y.
Barclay, C. Buller, Sir E.
Baring, F. Burrell, Sir C. M.,Bt.
Baring, W. B. Calcraft, J. H.
Baring, Rt. Hon. A. Campbell, Sir H. P.
Baring, H. B. Canning, Sir S.
Baring, T. Carruthers, D.
Barneby, J. Castlereagh, Viscount
Bateson, Sir R. Chandos, Marquis of
Beckett, Sir J. Chaplin, T.
Bell, M. Chapman, A.
Benettt, J. Charlton, E. L.
Bentinck, Lord G. Chatterton, Col.
Beresford, Sir J. P. Chichester, A.
Bethell, R. Churchill, Lord C. S.
Blackburne, J. I. Clerk, Sir J., Bart.
Blackstone, W. S. Clive, Viscount,
Clive, Hon. R. H. Grimston, Viscount
Codrington, C. W. Grimston, Hon. E. H.
Cole, Hon. A. H. Halford, H.
Cole, Viscount Halse, J.
Compton, H. C. Hamilton, Lord C.
Conolly, E. M. Hanmer, Sir J., Bart.
Cooper, E. J. Hanmer, H.
Coote, Sir C. C., Bart. Harcourt, G. G.
Copeland, W. T. Hardinge, Sir H.
Corbett, T. G. Hardy, J.
Corry, Hon. H. L. Hawkes, T.
Crawley, S. Hay, Sir J., Bart.
Crewe, Sir J. Hayes, Sir E S., B.
Crewe, Sir G., Bart. Henniker, Lord
Cripps, J. Herbert, Hon. S.
D'Albiac, Sir C. Herries, Rt. Hn. J. C.
Damer, D. Hill, Sir R., Bart.
Dare, R. W. H. Hill, Lord A.
Darlington, Earl of Hogg, J. W.
Davenport, J. Hope, Hon. J.
Denison, J. E. Hope, H. T,
Dick, Q. Hotham, Lord
Dottin, A. R. Houldsworth, T.
Dowdeswell, W. Hoy, J. B.
Duffield, T. Ingham, R.
Dugdale, D. S. Inglis, Sir R. H., Bart.
Duncombe, Hon. W. Irton, S.
Duncombe, Hon. A. Jackson, J. D.
Dundas, R. A. Jermyn, Earl of
Durham, Sir P. C. H. Johnstone, J. J. H.
East, J. B. Johnstone, Sir J.
Eastnor, Viscount Jones, T.
Eaton, R. J. Jones, W.
Egerton, W. T. Kavanagh, T.
Egerton, Sir P. de M. Kearsley, J. H.
Egerton, Lord F. Kelly, F.
Entwistle, J. Ker, D.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Kerrison, Sir E.
Fancourt, C. St. John Kirk, P.
Fector, J. M. Knatchbull, Sir E.
Ferguson, G. Knox, Hon. J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Lawson, A.
Fielden, W. Lee, J. L.
Finch, G. Lefroy, T.
Fleetwood, P. H. Lefroy, A.
Fleming, J. Lennox, Lord J. G.
Foley, E. T. Lewis, D.
Follett, Sir W. W. Lewis, W.
Forbes, Lord Leycester, J.
Fremantle, Sir T. F. Lincoln, Earl of
Forbes, W. Lopes, Sir R.
Forester, Hn. G. C. W. Lowther, Lord
Forster, C. S. Lowther, Hn. H. C.
Freshfield, J. W. Lowther, J. H.
Gaskell, J. Mimes Lucas, E.
Geary, Sir W. R. P. Lygon, Hn. Col. H. B.
Gladstone, W. E. Mackinnon, W. A.
Gladstone, T. Maclean, D.
Gordon, Capt. Mahon, Lord
Gore, W. O. Mandeville, Viscount
Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H. Manners, Lord R
Goulburn, Serjt. Marsland, T.
Graham, Sir J. R. G. Martin, J.
Grant, Hon. F. W Mathew, Captain
Greene, T. Maxwell, H.
Gresley, Sir R. Miles, W.
Greville, Sir C. J, Miles, P. J.
Miller, W. H. Somerset, Ld. G. C. H.
Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt. Somerset, Ld.R. E. H.
Morgan, C. M. R. Smyth, Sir G. H. Bart.
Mosley, Sir O., Bart. Spry, Sir S. T.
Neeld, J. Stanley, Lord
Neeld, Joseph Stanley, E.
Nicholl, J. Stewart, J.
Norreys, Lord Stewart, P. M.
North, F. Stormont, Viscount
O'Neill, Hn. J. R. R. Sturt, H. C.
Ossulston, Viscount. Surrey, Earl of
Owen, Sir J. Bart. Sutton,Rt.Hn.SirC.M.
Owen, H. Talbot, C. R. M.
Palmer, R. Tennant, J. E.
Patten, J. W. Thomas, Colonel
Pechell, Capt. Thompson, W.
Peel, Sir R. Bart., Tollemache, Hon. A.
Peel, Rt. Hn. W. Y. Townsend, Lord J.
Peel, Colonel Trench, Sir F.
Peel, E. Trevor, Hon. G R.
Pelham, J. C. Trevor, Hon. A.
Pemberton, T. Turner, W.
Penruddocke, J. H. Turner, T. F.
Perceval, Colonel Twiss, H.
Phillipps, C. M. Tyrrell, Sir J. T.
Pigot, R. Vaughan, Sir R. W.
Plumptre, J. P. Vere, Sir C. B. Bart.
Polhill, F. Verner, W.
Pollington, Viscount Verney, Sir H., Bart.
Pollock, Sir F. Vernon, G. H.
Powell, W. E. Vesey, Hn. T.
Praed, W. M. Vivian, J. E.
Praed, J. B. Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Price, S. G. Walker, R.
Price, R. Wall, C. B.
Pringle, A. Walter, J.
Pusey, P. Welby, G. E.
Rae, Sir W., Bt. Weyland, R.
Reid, Sir J. R. Whitmore, T. C.
Richards, J. Wilbraham, Hn. R.
Rickford, W. Williams, R.
Ridley, Sir M. W. Williams, T. P.
Robinson, G. R. Wilmot, Sir J. E., Bt.
Ross, C. Wilson, H.
Rushbrooke, R. Wodehouse, Hn. E.
Russell, C. Wood, T.
Ryle, J. Worcester, Marg. of
Saunderson, R. Wortley, Hn. J. S.
Sandon, Viscount Wyndham, W.
Scarlett, Hu. R. C. Wynn, Rt. Hn. C. W.
Scott, Lord J. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Scott, J. W. Yorke, E. T.
Scott, Sir E. D. Young, Sir W. L
Scourfield, W. II. Young, G. F.
Shaw, F. Young, J.
Sheppard, T. PAIRED OFF.
Sibthorp, Colonel Kavanah, T.
Sinclair, G. Smith. T. A.
Smith, A. Hughes, W. H.
List of the NOES.
Acheson, Viscount Andover, Lord
Adam, A. Anson, Sir G.
Aglionby, H. A. Astley, Sir J. Batt.
Alston, R. Attwood, T.
Angerstein, John Curteis, H. B.
Ainsworth, P. Curteis, E. B.
Bagshaw, J. Dalmeney, Lord
Baines, E. De Beauvoir, Sir J. E.
Bannerman, A. Denison, W. J.
Barham, J. Dennistoun, A.
Baring, F. T. Divett, E.
Barnard, E. G. Dobbin, L.
Barron, H. W. Donkin, Sir R. S.
Barry, G. S. Duncombe, T. S.
Beauclerk, A. W. Dundas, Hon. J. C.
Beaumont, T. W. Dundas, Hon. T.
Bellew, R. M. Dunlop, C.
Bellew, Sir P. Bt. Dykes, F. L. B.
Berkeley, Captain Ebrington, Lord
Berkeley, Hon. C. F. Edwards, J.
Berkeley, Hn. G. C. Elphinstone, H.
Bernal, R. Etwall, R.
Bewes, T. Evans, Col. de Lacy
Biddulph, R. Evans, G.
Blackburn, J. Ewart, W.
Blake, M. J. Euston, Lord
Blamire, W. Fazakerley, J. N.
Blunt, Sir C. R. Fellowes, Hon. N.
Bodkin, J. J. Fergus, J.
Bowes, J. Ferguson, Sir R. C.
Bowring, Dr. Ferguson, R.
Brabazon, Sir W. J. Fergusson, Rt. Hn. R. C
Brady, D. C. Finn, F. W.
Bridgman, H. Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.H.
Brockelhurst, J. Junr. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Brodie, W. B. Fitzsimon, N.
Brotherton, J. Fitzsimon, C.
Browne, D. Folkes, Sir W.J.H.B.
Buckingham, J. S. Fort, J.
Buller, C. Fox, C. R.
Bulwer, E. L. Gaskell, D.
Bulwer, H. L. Gillon, W. D.
Burton, H. P. Gisborne, T.
Burdon, W. W. Gordon, R.
Butler, Hon. P. Goring, H. D.
Buxton, T. F. Grant, Right Hon. C.
Byng, G. Grattan, H.
Byng, Sir J. Grattan, J.
Campbell, Sir J. F. Grey, Hon. C,
Carter, J. B. Grey, Sir G. Bt.
Cave, O. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Cavendish, Hon. C. C. Grote, G.
Cavendish, Hon. G. H. Gully, J.
Cayley, E. S. Hall, B.
Chalmers, P. Hallyburton, Hn. D. G.
Chapman, M. L. Handley, Henry
Chetwynd, W. F. Harland, W. C.
Chichester, J. P. B. Harvey, D. W.
Clay, W. Hawes, B.
Clayton, Sir W. R. Hawkins, J. H.
Clements, Viscount Hay, Colonel L.
Clive, E. B. Heathcote, J.
Cockerell, Sir C. Heathcote, R. E.
Codrington, Sir E. Hector, C. J.
Collier, J. Heneage, E.
Conyngham, Lord A. Heron, Sir R. Bt.
Cookes, T. H. Hindley, C.
Cowper, Hon. W. F. Hobhouse, Sir J. C.
Crawford, W. Hodges, T. L.
Crawford, W. S. Hodges, J. T.
Crompton, S. Holland, Edward
Hoskins, K. Oswald, J.
Howard, Hn. E. G. G. Paget, F.
Howard, P. H. Palmer, C.
Howard, R. Parker, J.
Howick, Viscount Parnell, Sir H. Bt.
Hume, J. Parrott, J.
Humphery, J. Pattison, J.
Hurst, R. H. Pease, J.
Hutt, W. Pelham, Hon. C. A. W.
Jephson, C. D. O. Pepys, Sir C. C.
Jervis, J. Perrin, L.
Johnston, A. Phillips, M.
Kemp, T. R. Pinney, W.
Kennedy, J. Ponsonby, Hon. J. G. B.
Kerry, Earl of Potter, R.
King, E. B. Poulter, J. S.
Labouchere, H. Power, J.
Lambton, H. Power, P.
Leader, J. F. Poyntz, W. S.
Lefevre, C. S. Price, Sir R.
Lennard, T. B. Pryme, G.
Lister, E. C. Ramsbottom, J.
Littleton, Rt. Hn. E.J. Ramsden, J. C.
Locke, W. Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.
Lushington, C. Rippon, C.
Lushington, Dr. Robarts, A. W.
Lynch, A. H. S. Roche, W.
Long, Walter Roche, D.
Lock, J. Roebuck, J. A.
M'Cleod, R. Rolfe, R. M.
Mackenzie, A. J. S. Ronayne, D.
Macnamara, W. N. Rooper, J. B.
M'Cance, J. Rundell, J.
M'Taggart, J. Russell, Lord J.
Maher, J. Russell, Lord W.
Marjoribanks, S. Russell, Lord C. J. F.
Marshall, W. Ruthven, E. S.
Marsland, H. Ruthven, E.
Martin, T. B. Scholefield, J.
Maule, Hon. F. Scrope, G. P.
Maxwell, J. Seale, Colonel
Methuen, P. Seymour, Lord
Milton, Viscount Sharpe, General
Molesworth, Sir W. Sheil, R. L.
Moreton, Hon. A. H. Sheldon, E. R. C.
Morpeth, Viscount Simeon, Sir R. G.
Mostyn, Hon. E. L. Smith, R. V.
Mullins, F. W. Smith, Benjamin
Murray, J. A. Smith, Hon. R.
Musgrave, Sir R. Bt. Smyth, Benjamin
Nagle, Sir R. Bt. Speirs, G.
O'Brien, C. Stanley, Hon. H. T.
O'Brien, W. S. Stanley, E. J.
O'Connell, M. Steuart, R.
O'Connell, D. Stewart, Sir M. S.
O'Connell, J. Strickland, Sir G.
O'Connell, M. J. Strutt, E.
O'Connell, M. Stuart, Lord D. C.
O'Connor, F. Sullivan, R.
O'Connor, Don Talbot, J. H.
O'Dwyer, A. C. Talfourd, T. N.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Tancred, H. W.
Oliphant, L. Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C.
O'Loughlin, M. Thompson, P. B.
Ord, W. H. Thomson, Rt. Hn. C. P.
Ord, W. Thornley, T.
Oswald, R. A. Tooke, W.
Townley, R. G. Wilde, Sergeant
Tracey, C. H. Wilkins, W.
Trelawney, Sir W. L. Wilks, J.
Trowbridge, Sir E. T. Williams, W.
Tulk, C. A. Williams, Sir J.
Tynte, C. K. K. Williams, W. A.
Tynte, C. J. K. Williamson, Sir H.
Villiers, C. P. Winnington, Sir T.
Villiers, F. Winnington, Captain
Walkey, T. Wood, M.
Walker, C. A. Wood, Charles
Wallace, R. Wrightson, W. B.
Warburton, H. Wrottesley, Sir J.
Ward, H. G. Wyse, T. Jun.
Wemyss, J.
Westenra, Hon. H. R. PAIRED OFF.
Westenra, Hon. J.
Whalley, Sir S. Langton, W. G.
White, S. Vivian, Major
Wigney, I. N. Pendarves, E. W
Wilbraham, G.