§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLSir, I rise to put a question of great importance to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House will recollect 1300 that on Monday last, in answer to a question, the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated to this House that he had intended to bring forward a Motion with regard to the disastrous effects which had followed the Act passed with respect to the import of sugar; but at present, being a Minister of the Crown, and of a Ministry in an acknowledged minority, he did not propose to assume that course, but that he should endeavour to obtain the object by means he thought most expedient. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded further to say that the opinion be entertained with regard to the disastrous effects of these measures was unchanged—that both with reference to the state of the Colonies, and with reference to the Slave Trade, his opinions remained the same as they were before. The right hon. Gentleman stated also that he received almost daily from the West India Colonies accounts of the distress which existed there; and he went on to say (nearly in these words), "but without being at all indifferent to that distress, we have determined that this question, like others of the same nature, ought to be kept for the consideration of a future Parliament." Now, Sir that answer with regard to the distress existing in the West India colonies, from the policy of the Sugar Duties, applies likewise to the policy pursued with regard to the question of the Corn Law, and with regard to other questions of a similar nature in relation to the free-trade policy. The House will see, therefore, it is of the utmost importance we should have some distinct assurance on this subject. I need not refer to what took place in the debate on Monday night. Everybody will have in their minds the speeches made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston). Bearing those speeches in mind, and bearing them in mind with reference likewise to the question asked mo, when I was in the Government, by Sir Robert Peel, in 1841, when we were in a minority in this House—recorded by a Vote of this House—I now ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to advise the Crown to dissolve the present Parliament, and to summon a new one with the least possible delay consistent with a due regard to the public interest in reference to those measures which are of ur- 1301 gent and immediate importance? and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer to that question.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid: The noble Lord has addressed to Her Majesty's Government an unprecedented question. The noble Lord has referred to a precedent in the year 1841, when he sat on the Treasury bench, and was the Leader of this House; but the noble Lord will allow me to remind him of a considerable difference between those who now sit on the Treasury bench and the noble Lord in 1841, because the Government then had been condemned by a vote of this House, and both the precedents to which Sir Robert Peel referred—1787 and 1831—were in a similar category; all had a reference to a Ministry that had been condemned by a vote of the House of Commons. The noble Lord ought to have described the question not only as an important, but also as an unprecedented, one. I shall, however, reply to the noble Lord. I think it is highly unconstitutional and most impolitic that Her Majesty's Government should pledge themselves to advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament at a stated and specific period. The noble Lord must feel that circumstances might suddenly arise which would render the fulfilment of such a pledge not only injurious, but perhaps even impracticable. At the same time I have no hesitation in saying that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise Her Majesty to dissolve this Parliament so soon as those necessary measures have been passed—I should rather say, so soon as those measures have been passed which are necessary for the service of Her Majesty and the security and good government of Her realm. I need only say further, that it is our wish and our intention to meet the new Parliament that will be elected, so that the decision of the new Parliament may be taken upon the question of confidence in the present Administration, and upon the measures which they will feel it their duty, under those circumstances, to propose, in the course of the present year.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLWith regard to two words used by the right hon. Gentleman, do those two words "good government," include the measures referred to the other night with respect to reform in the Court of Chancery?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI do not feel called on to give any 1302 further explanation to the question of the noble Lord.