HL Deb 10 May 1827 vol 17 cc707-33
The Duke of Newcastle

presented a Petition against any alteration in the Corn-laws. He said, that he should have thought it his duty to oppose the proposed bill respecting the Corn-laws, even if the noble author of it had continued to form part of the late government. But, if he should have thought it his duty to have done so under those circumstances, when the honourable persons who had been driven out of his majesty's government were in a situation to counsel their colleague, he should think it now to be his duty more particularly to oppose the bill, when those checks and safeguards were taken away. He should therefore oppose the present bill; and he did think that it was the duty of every honest man—the duty of every friend to his country—to stand forward and lend his aid to dispossess of power one who—perhaps he might be using a harsh term, but he knew of no other which would convey his meaning, and he applied it in a political sense—was the most profligate minister that had ever been placed in power. He called upon all those persons of whatever party they might be, to liberate the king from the awful and tremendous position in which he was placed, and to overthrow the coalition which he believed to be the most dangerous and the most unprincipled, that had ever entered into the head of a statesman to project. He had thought it his duty to say these few words to acquaint their lordships with his opinion. He was afraid he had not clearly enough expressed himself; but he was sure that it was the sentiments of every man throughout the country, from John O'Groat's House to the Land's-end.

Lord Teynham

presented a Petition from Newport Pagnell against the Corn-bill, He should move to-morrow, that the petition be taken into consideration, in order to afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard at their lordships' bar.

The Earl of Darlington

said, that after the eloquent speech which had been made upon the presentation of one of the petitions against any alteration in the Corn-laws, that had been laid upon their lordships' table that day, he felt himself called upon to say a few words. With respect to an alteration in the Corn-laws, he had long formed his opinion upon the subject. He had, however, thought it necessary to inquire of some practical farmers, what were their opinions; and he was happy to find that they corresponded with his own. He thought that the bill was a desirable, he would not say a perfect one; but he believed it to be better than any that had been yet proposed; and he would, therefore, give it his support, without deciding upon it as a permanent measure. In adverting to the bill, he could not avoid saying, that he felt astonished and surprised, at the course which had been taken by noble lords upon the opposite benches. He regretted deeply, to see their sudden and violent opposition to his majesty's government; which had arisen, as he conceived, from one of two causes—either from a desire, upon the part of some noble lords, to return to office and to place, or from a desire to dictate to the sovereign in the appointment of a minister. He, for one, thought that both causes were objectionable. It had been observed by a noble earl upon the opposite benches, that he could perceive an approximation between the late government and the late opposition; and he was ready to admit that, when he sat at the other side of the House, he had, in most cases, approved of the measures which that government pursued. He could appeal to a noble earl who had lately sat upon the woolsack; and he felt assured that noble earl would acknowledge, that he had stated the same thing upon his legs last session. He saw no reason why he should alter the course which he had then pursued. He had but little personal knowledge of the right hon. gentleman at the head of the existing government, but he was of opinion, that his name had been made use of before their lordships on that night, in an uncourteous and unparliamentary manner. He assured their lordships, he did not stand there as the champion of the new government, which needed not so feeble an abettor; but he stood there to vindicate himself for coming over to the place which he then occupied. He conceived that the right hon. gentleman at the head of the administration, acted upon the principles which he had himself maintained for a period of five and thirty years. He looked upon that right hon. gentleman as a friend to civil and religious liberty; and from what he had seen of his conduct when Foreign Secretary, he was disposed to think that he had proved himself a consummate statesman, and one admirably calculated to direct our foreign and domestic policy. There were other reasons also, which had induced him to approve of the right hon. gentleman's conduct. He considered, that the present opposition to government was intemperate, and in some degree unfair; commenced as it was before the present ministers had taken their places in parliament, and while some places still remained vacant. He conceived that such a course was not a proper way to support an opposition; and that its object could only be to embarrass the government. If the government should not pursue those measures, which he was firmly convinced they would, he did not think that he was bound to support them. But he would say and maintain, that upon the principles which he had always entertained, and upon the principles on which government would now act—upon these principles he was bound to state, before his God, before his country, and before their lordships, that he firmly believed that if the government obtained that assistance which he hoped it would, it would be one of the firmest administrations which had ever ruled over the country. He apologized to their lordships for having taken up so much of their time, but he thought it due to himself to explain the motives which induced him to support the present government; and all he wished to say was, that, until he saw the government acting in a different manner from what he expected, he should give it his best and most strenuous support.

The Earl of Harewood

said, he felt great diffidence in addressing their lordships. He had only come very recently into the House, and had not been present at the commencement of the discussion. He had only heard a very warm eulogium upon the existing government; and really, unless he had been absolutely provoked to say something, he would not have trespassed upon their lordships' attention. But when he heard any thing like blame or opprobrium imputed and attached to those who were not supporters of the existing government, he felt called upon to stand forth, and vindicate himself from any charge of unfair or factious opposition. He trusted that he might, in confidence, appeal to the whole course and tenor of his life, in answer to such a charge. But he confessed that there were circumstances connected with the new administration which he considered strange; and he trusted, that, if he asked a question, his not having given notice of his intention so to do, would not be imputed to him as a want of courtesy. He felt, however, that there was a necessity for his apologising for thus hastily putting the description of question which he proposed to put. He was ignorant of what the existing administration was formed; and he held, that parliament and the country had a right to know, in what hands the business of the nation had been placed, and by whom it was to be transacted. Circumstances of a very extraordinary nature had recently taken place. Several noble lords who had been high in the confidence of his majesty, had suddenly resigned, and the Houses of parliament, and the country in general, conceived that they were entitled to an explanation of the causes which had induced those noble lords to resign; and, accordingly they had, separately, given explanations, which had been, he believed, considered satisfactory. On the other hand, with respect to the new administration, there were circumstances unusual, if not unprecedented. It was the general and undisputed belief, that the government was not then, what it was intended to be at a future period. If any mystery did exist with respect to the formation of the government—and of the fact of its existence he believed there could not be a doubt—he considered that the public and the parliament were as fully entitled to call upon the members of the Cabinet for explanation, as upon the noble lords who had retired from the government; and that the members of the Cabinet were equally bound to give it. He did not stand there to ask questions from any factious motive. He was acting individually, and for what he conceived to be the best interests of the country. He thought it was essential for it to know, what was the real state of the question. If he asked, whether the great offices of state were filled, he was aware that the answer would be, that they were filled; and, in a certain sense, of course they were so. But he would ask, if those offices were filled in the manner in which they were to be permanently occupied? He thought the country had a right to explanation upon this point. How did their lordships know that the most important interests of the country might not be compromised, or be placed at stake, in consequence of the proposed alterations? The government, as at present constituted, was composed of members who had heretofore acted in opposition to each other—who differed in the most material questions with the late administration; those differences were known to exist; and it was not easy to believe that they were quite reconciled; but if that was the case, let it be declared. He did not want to press unnecessarily for any disclosures; but he considered that matters of such importance should not be withheld. In what situation would the country stand, if that information was not immediately afforded? It was very possible the business of parliament might be got through very shortly; they were given to understand, that no discussion would take place on subjects that had, in former sessions, occupied a considerable period; and that other important questions would not be brought forward. And, if no explanation took place, in what a state would they be, if a prorogation should prevent their forming an opinion on one of the most important points which could occupy their attention? Were they to remain in that state until they were called together again? He had mentioned these circumstances as they had arisen in his mind: he had not mentioned the subject to a single individual; he did not belong to any party, nor would he lend himself to any party with a view to injure or inflict injustice on any one. He called on the noble earl to state those facts to the House, not from any motives of idle curiosity, but on behalf of the country.

Viscount Goderich

said:—My lords, do not mean to impute any want of courtesy to the noble earl for the questions he has asked; nor do I complain of the doubts which he has so frankly and distinctly expressed, with respect to the present position of the government. But I wish to observe to the noble earl, that he has not accurately stated the circumstances under which my noble friend arose to address your lordships. If the noble earl had arrived in this House at an earlier period of the evening, he would have heard a noble duke upon the opposite benches declare, in the most unequivocal terms, not only his total want of confidence in the administration, but his most unqualified reprobation of the individual whom it has pleased his majesty to place at its head. And then, my lords, I should suppose the noble earl would not conceive it unnatural, that any noble lord, who believed that he was justified in giving his confidence to the government, should rise in his place, and express that confidence to your lordships and the country. I lament, as sincerely as any man can do, that these discussions should be thus, day after day, brought forward, in an indirect and irregular manner; but I do think that if noble lords refuse to bestow their confidence upon the government, the plain and manly course for them to follow, consistently with their own fair fame, and the principles which they profess, would be, to call openly and regularly upon the House to express its sentiments. And it was, therefore, my lords, that I hailed with pleasure the distinct and constitutional motion of a noble earl (Winchilsea); because it would enable us to come forward to your lordships with a distinct explanation, and to submit it to the test of your approbation. And I must say, my lords, that I am no less grieved than surprised to find, that the noble earl has not yet mentioned a day on which he will bring that motion forward. If noble lords will withhold their confidence from the government because they choose to assume that that government is formed in a particular way, I ask those noble lords, in justice to us, and in justice to themselves, and to the consistency of their own principles, to bring the question fairly to the test. And then, my lords, if we are not able to satisfy the House and the country, that they should repose their confidence in us, and that we are fully disposed to use our best endeavours to promote the welfare of the country, in those situations in which we have been placed, and for the exercise of which we are responsible to our king and to our country, you will tell us so, and we will bow to that decision. But it is not fair that we should be thus attacked day after day, by interlocutory questions, which can lead to no satisfactory result. All we want is a fair opportunity of entering into a full explanation of our views and intentions; and, from what I know of the high and generous feelings of my right hon. friend at the head of the Treasury, his great anxiety would be to have that opportunity afforded us, so that we might be no longer baited, day after day, without having it in our power to shew, by distinct proof, whether we be or be not, worthy of the confidence of your lordships, and of the country.

The Marquis of Salisbury

said, it was rather too much to call upon noble lords on his side of the House, to bestow their confidence upon an administration which had not, as yet, performed any act. He had, however, no hesitation in declaring, that he should look with the utmost suspicion upon every act of an administration constituted as the present government was. Some of the noble lords who were in that administration, had positively stated their wish to he out of office; others declared that they had joined it for the purpose of furthering a question which was not to be at all brought forward, at least as a cabinet question. Others, again, had remained in office, as the best means of securing a Protestant parliament to a Protestant king; and all these were united with a body of men who had previously opposed almost every measure they had brought forward. He saw these things with suspicion; and they indicated, he thought, a change in the principles, or in the policy, of those who remained in office. It was far from his wish to have addressed these observations to their lordships if it had not been for the noble earl who had caused the debate [no, no!]. He left it to the judgment of their lordships, whether any thing said by his side of the House could justify the appli- cation of such words as "factious" to the Opposition. Not having had as yet the advantage of deciding on any one act of the government, they could not be taxed with being a faction. He distrusted the minister at the head of the government; but he could not, on that account, be accused of forming a factious Opposition. He could assure the noble earl, that it was by no means his wish to suspect the motives of any administration which had received the approbation of his majesty. In the king he placed the most perfect confidence; and he was convinced that, if his majesty discovered that measures were adopted under the mask only, and not in the spirit, of the earl of Liverpool's government, he would at once call on the country to rid him of such an administration. And if it was not for that confidence which the country placed in his majesty, and the conviction they entertained of his firmness [loud cries of "order"]—

The Earl of Hardwicke rose

to order. He did not think that this sort of conversation ought any longer to be continued. It was irregular to allude to the private opinion of his majesty, although the acts of his majesty's ministers were legitimate ground for observation.

The Marquis of Salisbury

resumed; and after some further observations on the course which he anticipated, concluded by stating, that, he was well aware that such discussions tended to no good; but he could not submit to such imputations being cast upon his noble friends.

The Earl of Darlington,

in explanation, denied that he had used the word "factious," as applied to the Opposition of the noble lords on the other side of the House; though, if he had done so, he could not but think he should have been justified, when he recollected that a noble duke, forming one of the Opposition, had used a term so strong as that of "profligate minister."

The Earl of Lauderdale

said, he did not know why any noble lord was not at liberty to allude, and could not, by the forms of that House, regularly allude, to the transaction, for attempting to speak of which his noble friend had been called to order. If his majesty had thought fit to make any statement, with a view to tranquillise the country, any noble lord was at liberty to ask what it was; and if his majesty had done so, he must have done it on the advice of his ministers, for in that House no act of his majesty was known, but as an act advised by his ministers, and for which they were responsible. There were noble lords near him, who, taking, the cue from their former conduct, would have acknowledged their responsibility; but they had resigned before the act to which allusion had been made was performed; and there were others present, who then held office, and who had not resigned since; and he repeated, that those who remained in office were responsible for the acts of the government while they continued there. He had only addressed these observations to their lordships, because he foresaw much inconvenience if the right of alluding to these matters was not regulated.

The Earl of Falmouth

said, that the noble earl opposite had accused the opposition with being influenced by a wish to dictate to the king, or by a love of place. The first he utterly disclaimed; professing, as he did, to be as loyal a subject as any in the kingdom: neither was he influenced by a love of place, for he had never sought to obtain it. He did not think, therefore, that the noble earl was justified in attributing these motives to noble lords who disapproved of the government. He did not complain that the noble earl gave his support to the government. All he claimed for himself was, that the noble earl would not interfere with its opponents, and attribute the views they took of the administration to improper motives. He had a right, as well as the noble earl, to give his support to whomsoever he pleased; and he owned that he could not support any administration in which he did not place confidence. There were many accounts on which he was grieved to say he had no confidence in the present administration. Looking at the means and powers it possessed, he did not intend to say that it would not be capable of serving the country, but he must repeat, that he had no confidence in it. Holding those opinions, he could not avoid stating them openly, fairly, and he hoped in no unparliamentary language.

Lord Ellenborough

said, that the noble earl, who had manifested so much surprise at the existence of the present opposition to the new administration, must allow an equal degree of surprise to be felt by those who witnessed his support of it, and who could not give it their confidence. That noble earl's support of the administration was the more remarkable at the present moment, as he now stated that the opinions upon which the government acted, were those which he himself had entertained for the last thirty-five years. If this was the fact, it was rather extraordinary that now, in the eleventh, or more properly speaking, in the thirty-fifth hour, the noble earl, for the first time, thought of giving them his support. That the noble earl's present support, though delayed so long, was not perfectly disinterested, far was it from him to presume; but he was a little too early in showing his disinterestedness. It was well known now that the present government was merely provisional. As places were not yet filled up—its good things were not yet given away, and some time must be suffered to elapse, before any opinion could be formed as to the inducement of those who supported the administration. The noble earl had charged those who opposed the new government, with being actuated either by a love of place or a disposition to dictate to his majesty. As to the first of these charges, he had always understood, that those were nearest place who were to be found in support of, and not in opposition to, the government. But, if the charge was to be maintained at all, which he denied, surely it was least of all to be maintained against those who had resigned places, which they had held for years, and whose resignations had been commented upon in no very delicate language out of doors. As to the other charge, that of a disposition to dictate to his majesty, he merely wished to say, that it was his majesty's undoubted prerogative to choose what ministers he might please; but he would also assert, that it was the undoubted privilege of parliament to express the opinions they might entertain upon the ministers he had chosen. Now, what were those ministers? What was the line of conduct they had agreed to adopt? The only matter in which their opinions seemed to be uniform was, as to the propriety of being quite taciturn. They would not say any thing upon any subject. They would not even tell their lordships—what was as notorious as the sun at noon-day—that they only held their places provisionally. Under these circumstances, what opinion could be formed of a government, when it was not known in what state it was? The question which had been put by his noble friend to the government was objected to, as it seemed to him, very improperly; for he was of opinion, that that question was but a preliminary step to the motion of which notice had been formerly given. But what was the course now adopted? Why, that of preventing discussion upon the question of the administration, by depriving parliament of the privilege which they undoubtedly possessed; namely, that of expressing their opinion upon those who composed the ministry. The places that were not now disposed of were to be filled up when the business of the session was at an end, and when the parliament had separated, or was about to separate. The deed was to be done in the dark. The good things were to be disposed of, when there could be no more questions about the matter. It might be very convenient for ministers to drop all notices of motion—to give a silent vote on all questions proposed to them, and then to separate. But if they did so, one whole year would be lost to the public service. That course might be very convenient to ministers, but it would be highly inconvenient to the public. As to the conduct of those who had gone over to the other side of the House, he repeated, that they must wait before a final opinion could be pronounced upon them. It would remain for time to shew whether this coalition was a coalition, or whether it was merely an accession; or, in other words, a case in which men who had long supported certain principles, acceded to a government, at the head of which was a right hon. gentleman, who had long been advocating principles exactly opposite. He had imagined, that there was a difference between the principles of Mr. Pitt and those of Mr. Fox. That difference, however, was now forgotten; or perhaps he was mistaken in supposing that it had ever existed; perhaps there had been no real distinction between them, and nothing but unfavourable circumstances had so long prevented their respective advocates from rushing into each other's arms. How that might be, he would not stay to inquire; but he did say, that their lordships must wait, before they gave their confidence to this government, until they should know whether this accession had arisen out of a sense of public duty—whether it had been accompanied by perfect disinterestedness—whether it was a sacrifice of private feeling to the public benefit—or whether it was a vulgar case of willing political seduction, only carried on with a little more than ordinary regard to the outer forms of decency.

Earl Spencer

said, he could not be silent after such an attack as that which their lordships had just heard; especially when he told them, that it was his intention to support the government. He did not know how the noble lord who spoke last could think of complaining of the language used towards the present Opposition by the supporters of the administration, when he recollected, that it was only a few days since that noble lord had himself put forth a declaration, in the very strongest language, that he would offer nothing but an uncompromising resistance to the present government. That noble lord had spoken of the administration now existing as only provisional. Whether the noble lord was well informed, or not at all informed, upon that subject, it was not for him to say; but he must observe, that unless that noble lord was correctly informed, it did not become him to use such expressions; for mere rumours, or newspaper reports, were not fit subjects to be introduced to their lordships. He should not interfere with the conduct of noble lords who opposed the administration. He would give them that credit, which, by the bye, they did not seem inclined to allow him; and would suppose that they acted from very proper motives. The noble lord opposite claimed the right of placing his confidence where he might think fit. That right he was willing to concede to the noble lord; but then, at the same time, he claimed for himself an equal right to place his confidence where it might seem best to him to repose it. Without wishing to prolong this conversation—he would not stay to inquire how it had arisen—it was his wish to give their lordships a short view of the grounds on which he was prepared to say, that he should support the present government as long as they acted up to the liberal principles which they now avowed. To noble lords who pretended an ignorance of those opinions, he would put the question, where had they lived during the last few years? Many of them, especially those who now supported the administration, had approved of a number of the measures of the late government. From some of those measures they—and he among the number—had expressed their dissent. In one instance, especially, he had differed from the late government. He meant in the support he had given to a measure to which that administration was opposed, but which he then and still considered as one of paramount importance; namely, the measure for the relief of the Catholics from the disabilities under which they laboured. He had said then, and he now repeated it, that the peace of the empire could not be secured, until that question was satisfactorily decided. After having expressed that opinion, would the noble lord opposite charge him with inconsistency, when he said, that as soon as he saw the councils of the king—and he used the expression with all respect for those who were the subject of the remark—deserted by a large portion of those who had previously constituted the government, he asked who were to succeed to their places; and on learning that those who were to form the administration were those who held the same opinions upon that paramount question which he espoused, he felt inclined to give them his support. The present administration was said to be formed upon the principle of lord Liverpool's government. He was not exactly sure what that meant. The government of the noble earl was founded upon the principle of a divided administration. On that principle other noble lords might put what construction they pleased; but to him it did not appear a very advantageous mode of forming a government. He thought so during the existence of that noble earl's administration, and he was of the same opinion at this moment. But the division then was especially objectionable to him; and he called upon those who considered the two administrations as the same, and who might charge him with inconsistency in supporting that which now existed, to look at the difference between them, and then to say, whether such a charge could be supported. In the administration of which the earl of Liverpool was the head, it was well known that the majority were hostile to the claims of the Catholics; and the noble earl himself expressly declared, that he would not concede those claims. Now, when he thought that those claims ought to be granted, was it not natural for him to be opposed to a government acting on precisely the opposite principle? What was the case at present? The change, in that respect, had been complete; for that part of the late administration who had been friendly to the proposed concessions were the majority of the present government, at the head of which was the right hon. gentleman, who had long been the persevering and eloquent advocate of those claims. If perseverance in the endeavour to obtain what he thought justice required to be granted was worthy of confidence, then that right hon. gentleman had a full claim to his confidence; and he felt that he deserted none of his principles, and that he was justified in the fullest degree, in affording his support to the government, so long as it was inclined to adopt those measures which he thought advantageous to the country. All the vulgar imputations of sordid motives, and of profligate conduct, seemed to him highly improper; and he positively disclaimed their application to himself. He made no accusations against those who had retired from the government. They had a right to retire, if they could not place confidence in it. He did not know what was the occasion on which it had fallen under their censure; but if it had, they certainly had a right to mark their unfavourable opinion of it by quitting it. He would not speak of any concert between those who had so quitted the administration, nor of their motives. He was willing to believe that they had quitted for no other reason than that they could not place confidence in it. Why they could not place confidence in it he was equally unable to say; but, while the right hon. gentleman now at its head was in favour of those measures of which he himself entertained a favourable opinion, he should give that right hon. gentleman his support; and he trusted he might do so, without incurring the reproach of deserting those principles which he had hitherto professed.

Earl Grey rose

and said:—It is not possible for me, my lords, to abstain from saying a few words upon this occasion, because I assure your lordships, with the utmost sincerity, that nothing can be so truly painful to me, as to find myself in a situation in which I must explain those differences of opinion that have separated me from those noble friends, with whom I have acted throughout the whole of my political life, and for whom, at this moment, I entertain the most sincere and ardent affection. Before, however, I say one word about those differences, I must, distinctly disclaim any participation in the opinion, that there is the slightest necessity for us to wait the progress of time, in order to be fully convinced of the purity of their motives, and the honesty of the intentions, which have induced my noble friends to adopt the course which they have thought proper to pursue. On whatever reasons they may have founded their conduct, and whether those reasons may appear satisfactory to me or not, I am certain—as certain as I am of my own existence—that in taking their places on that side of the House—to which I regret I cannot accompany them—nothing but the most perfect disinterestedness, the most sincere conviction that what they did was an act of paramount duty, can have influenced their conduct [hear, hear!]. To differ from such men, at all times, but especially on such an occasion as the present, and with such a conviction as I entertain of the purity of their motives, must be painful in the extreme; and the pain occasioned by that difference is such, that the agitation which I feel at this moment almost deprives me of the power of addressing your lordships. I sit here now. I have sat here for twenty years, with at least but one exception. I have not forfeited my right to retain the seat; but, although ranked among those who occupy the Opposition benches, I beg not to be classed as one of those who are now forming an opposition to his majesty's government. I am sure the noble earl who opened this debate will not attribute to me any factious or interested motives for my conduct. I disclaim all opposition to his majesty's government. I do not remain here with any determination of that sort, but because I cannot see, in the principles on which that government is constructed, any grounds for that confidence which it is necessary I should feel in it, before I can give any pledge, or promise, of my support of its measures. Something has been said of an attempt to dictate to his majesty in the exercise of his royal prerogative.

My noble friend, who advanced that charge, has said many things which I was surprised to hear. It certainly is the undisputed and indisputable right of the king to choose what ministers he pleases; but, over the exercise of that undisputed right, there did exist a control, as there does over other acts of the royal prerogative, and that control is vested in the parliament; so that, if the parliament does not feel that the ministers of the king's choice are such as deserve their confidence, they are exercising only, on their part, that right which, in the best times, and by the most wise and most virtuous statesmen, has been frequently acknowledged—the right of remonstrating with his majesty on that choice, which appears to them prejudicial to the country. Although, therefore, the choice of ministers is an absolute and undisputed prerogative of the Crown, yet it is not beyond control; and in upholding the prerogatives of the Crown, let us not forget, my lords, what are the privileges of the people; and that, if it is the prerogative of the Crown to appoint the ministers, it is equally the privilege of the people to express their disapproval of that appointment. For these reasons, I think that those who have declined to enter into the service of an administration of which they disapprove, have been perfectly justified in their conduct; and this I take to be a rule so clear and so sacred, that I think they have only been wrong in entering into any explanation respecting it [cheers]. I am glad to find, from these marks of approbation, that what I have stated is assented to.—Then, what are the objections entertained by persons who might fill the vacant offices of the government, but who have declined to do so? There may, my lords, be many objections. I have heard a great deal said upon this subject, which I confess I do not precisely understand. I have heard of objections arising from personal, meaning thereby unjustifiable, feelings. I do not think that meaning ought, in all cases, to be affixed to the word. When I am called on to enter into the service of an administration, I am called on deeply to commit my character and my honour in the measures of that government of which I am to form a part; and, if I see that the person who influences and directs the administration is one to whom I cannot safely commit myself, I am bound to decline engaging in the service; as I do not feel that security for my honour and character which a full confidence in the head of the administration alone can give me. In that sense of the word, a personal objection may be the soundest and the best objection that can be entertained, and to claim the right of questioning any one upon such objections is, in my idea, a most improper, and, I will add, most unconstitutional dogma.

I have said thus much on this point, without any intention of defending the one side or the other, but to place the question upon constitutional grounds, and to contend for the right which every man ought to possess over his own actions; to attempt to deprive him of which would be most unconstitutional and unjust. And now I leave this part of the subject, and return to the observations of my noble friend opposite. I again declare, that I form no part of a factious Opposition; indeed, I form no part of an Opposition at all. On the contrary, if there be any persons in this House to whom my principles are more decidedly opposed than to any other, they are those whom I have lately heard professing themselves to be the Opposition to the government. Not only do my principles prevent me from wishing to do any thing, but they will induce me not to do any thing, that may promote their return to power. Having said this, if I am asked, why I do not support the present administration, I must answer, by repeating what I set out with saying—that I cannot see in its composition those grounds of confidence, that would entitle me to give them consistently and conscientiously a formal pledge and promise of support. I have heard that this administration is likely to promote the accomplishment of that great question, which, like my noble friend who spoke last, I consider to be one of paramount importance; and the full and decisive, and satisfactory settlement of which, I believe, with him, to be necessary to the peace and security of the empire. When I say thus much, let me not be supposed to assert, that the granting of this matter is alone sufficient to accomplish every thing that is necessary to the tranquillity and welfare of Ireland. Far from it. Alone, I believe it would produce little good. There are many measures which must be carried into effect, before we can hope to remove the evils, and to remedy the oppressions, under which that country has long groaned; but, without this leading measure, it is my firm belief, that all others must be ineffectual; and that, until this great question be carried, all attempts to ameliorate her condition, or to improve her character, must be worse than useless. To those, then, who are opposed to the granting of that measure, I am strenuously and systematically opposed, and to those who support that measure, I give my firm and cordial support.

But, one of the grounds on which I refuse my confidence to the present administration is this—I do not see in that administration—I do not see in the persons who compose it, or in the principles on which it is understood to be formed—any thing to justify me in supposing, that this question will advance one step, in consequence of the change to which they owe their places. Is it not true, I will ask, that they have entered into an engagement with his majesty—let not the House be alarmed at the idea that I am about to enter on forbidden ground, or to touch upon a topic which the rules of parliament exclude from its discussions—that they have entered into an engagement with his majesty, as to certain distinct principles on which the administration has been composed? We heard at first that this administration was to be formed upon a principle similar to that of which the earl of Liverpool was the head. My noble friend who spoke last has stated his ignorance of what that principle means. But it is not so with me—I did, and I do, understand its meaning; and it is this: the exclusion of the Catholic question, as a measure of government. To that principle I have always been, and always shall be, steadily opposed. And I now ask of the noble lords opposite to answer me, aye or no, is that question, or is not that question, to be proposed to parliament by them? We are told, it is true, that any individual of the government may, if he pleases, propose it; but this is a privilege, and not only a privilege, but a right, which was never denied to any member of lord Liverpool's administration, or of any administration that ever existed. I ask, then, of the noble lords opposite, or of any one of them, to answer me, aye or no, has or has not an engagement been entered into, not to bring forward the Catholic question as a measure of government? If such an engagement have been made, that at once settles my mind; because it is a principle which I have always opposed. It is nothing less than that which, in 1807, I rejected; and to which nothing shall ever induce me to agree—to which nothing can ever reconcile me, either as a citizen of a free state, or as it regards the oath which I have solemnly taken to the king, to give him the best advice I am capable of giving, as a privy councillor. If this, then, be the principle in which the new ministry are agreed, that alone will prevent my pledging myself to their support; although I will support, to the utmost of my abilities, any measure which tends, either directly or indirectly, to the granting of this great question, which I consider as more important than any other.

But there is another consideration which would lead me to the same conclusion, and prevent my giving to the new administration my support; I mean, the principle of division in the cabinet. That division may not, it is true, be as equal against the Catholics as it was in the administration of lord Liverpool; but if it be more unequal, when I see the highest law authority in the land, who is notoriously adverse to the measure which I advocate—and when I know that his extensive patronage will be employed to gain opposers to that measure—I find it impossible to give any pledge, to become the general supporter of an administration so constructed. We are told that all the other great offices of the Crown are filled by those who support this great question. For the proof of this assertion I must be allowed to say, we must yet wait; for sufficient evidence of it we do not at present possess. I know that the first minister of the Crown, who must, of necessity, possess great political, great civil, and great ecclesiastical patronage—which patronage, if employed to bring about this most desirable end, will naturally have considerable effect—is the advocate of this important measure. And, so far, the change that has taken place, I consider an advantageous change. But, if I see a principle employed to check and control his power, I must be allowed to wait for evidence before I can proceed; to perceive some facts, which will prove something more than assertions. Is there, then, such an engagement as that to which I have referred? Will the noble lords opposite, or will they not, contradict it? If it be not contradicted, let us see how the right hon. gentleman at the head of his majesty's government will stand. He will not bring that measure forward—but he will employ all his abilities, and all his extensive patronage, to forward it; and he will do that in one way which he will not do in another. I have heard talk of conspiracies upon this occasion; but, if this be the way in which this great question is to be carried, what name, I ask you, does it deserve? I, therefore, my lords, find myself placed in a situation, which makes it quite impossible for me, feeling a sense of public duty, recollecting what I did in the year 1807, recollecting what I did in the year 1809, and recollecting what I wrote and what I signed in the year 1812—I say, which makes it quite impossible for me, without violating every pledge and promise I have given, without breaking every undertaking I have made, without being guilty of the greatest inconsistency—to join in a general declaration of support to an administration such as that which is at present formed.

But, there is another question to which allusion has been made by my noble friend; I mean, the foreign relations of the country. And here I must observe, that I know not how it has happened, that a sort of contrast has been held up before the public, between the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, now at the head of his majesty's government, and that of the individuals with whom he was recently associated—his former colleagues in the administration. On this subject, I must declare, that it will be necessary for me to know that the salutary measures, referring to this subject, were carried by the right hon. gentleman, not only without the assistance, but in spite of the efforts, of those individuals, before I can consent to allow him the exclusive merit belonging to them. I am sure that he has not himself led to the holding up of this contrast: I am sure that it has been owing to the indiscretion of his friends. For, if I could believe him guilty of such conduct, that would be, indeed, one great reason, why I should refuse him my support, and withhold from him my confidence. Let us, my lords; for a moment see, what has been the history of the right hon. gentleman's career. The right hon. gentleman quitted office in 1809; upon what grounds it is not at this moment for me to say. He returned partially to office in 1814; and soon after he became president of the Board of Control, in which office he continued until 1820; when he again left office, declining to take any part against the late queen. Now, during the whole course of the right hon. gentleman's public career, there is not any man who has less approved of his conduct than myself; and I therefore ask, whether I could with honour—whether I could, without a sacrifice of personal feeling and of personal character—give my support to the administration of the right hon. gentleman? I thought then, and I think still, that the right hon. gentleman deserved no exclu- sive praise for any liberal act of the late administration. Was it to be supposed that his colleagues would have allowed themselves to be dragged into any measure proposed by him, in which they themselves did not perfectly concur?

Things went on in this way for a time, and then some alterations were made; but it will be found, upon inquiry into the history of the country, that they arose more from the change of time and circumstances, than from any exertion or support on the part of the right hon. gentleman. First let me take South America. I was one of those who recommended and approved of the recognition of the independence of that country; and if any blame existed on the subject, it was that the recognition of that independence had been too long delayed. But, if the policy of that measure was to be learnt from a speech published by the right hon. gentleman; and, if we are to judge from his statement the reasons which dictated it, then I say, that that right hon. gentleman's speech is deserving of the greatest reprehension. I say this, because I find that he connives at the invasion of Spain by France—and why?—Because he looked elsewhere for a security against the effects of that invasion. And where did the right hon. gentleman look? He looked to the benefit to be derived to this country, from the separation of South America from Spain. In that speech the right hon. gentleman stated, "that he had called the New World into existence, in order to defeat the policy of France, with respect to Spain." From this it appears, that the right hon. gentleman—looking only to some beneficial commercial intercourse between this country and South America, was ready to set aside every feeling of national right and national independence. In that speech of the right hon. gentleman, there was much to inspire me with respect; but I must say, that there was also in it much to inspire me with a very different feeling. In the first place, I deny the soundness of the right hon. gentleman's policy; because I do not think the danger to this country less, though the colonies were so separated; nor is it true that it was the union of the Indies which made us so jealous of the connection between France and Spain. Our jealousy was not founded on European principles, but on the military position of Spain, and the consequent danger to Ireland, if Spain should be in the occupation of France. The danger, then, was not from Spain and the Indies, but from Spain alone. The right hon. gentleman took to himself all the credit of having called the colonies of South America "into existence." But, how stands the fact? Why, we find that the acknowledgment of the independence of South America did not take place until two years after the late occupation of Spain by the French—until after the perpetration of an act, on the part of the French government, which I do not hesitate to pronounce more base and oppressive than any committed even by Napoleon himself. The occupation of Spain took place in 1823, and the South American States were not acknowledged by this country to be independent until 1825. And then, my lords, I say, that the right hon. gentleman's assertion, "that he called those colonies into existence," was an idle and an empty boast [cheers from the Opposition benches]. They were called into existence by their own exertions—they were called into existence by the example of the United States of America—they were called and nurtured into existence by the united wishes and encouragement of the people of this country. The people of those colonies had so far advanced their own cause, that it was impossible their final independence could be much longer delayed.

Having said so much as to my own opinions upon the subject, I shall now take leave to call your lordships' attention to what the right hon. gentleman says himself upon this occasion. "If," says he, "I allowed France to occupy Spain, was it necessary that we should blockade Cadiz? I say no. I looked another way for compensation; I looked to another hemisphere; and, if France occupied Spain, I resolved that it should not be Spain with the Indies. I called the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the Old" [cheers from the Opposition]. Could any thing be more idle than this empty boast! Let us now see what was the language held by the right hon. gentleman to the Spanish minister upon this very question. He observes to that gentleman, in his note of the 25th March, 1825, "The separation of the Colonies in the New World from Spain is neither our work nor our wishes. Events have occurred in which Great Britain took no part, but which caused the separation of Spain from her Colonies—a separation which might have been prevented, had our advice been taken in time." And yet this was the man who had "called the New World into creation;" and observed, that, although he had allowed France quietly to occupy the Spanish territories, it must not be with the possession of South America. In another part of this despatch, and a very long despatch it was, the right hon. gentleman says, "The undersigned has it in command from the King, to offer his Majesty's kind offices, for the purpose of bringing about an amicable arrangement between the King of Spain, and those Colonies which have separated from him."

Now, after all these statements on the one side and on the other, I ask your lordships whether I can fairly place any confidence, either in the right hon. gentleman, or in the government he has brought together? My doubts are not of recent occurrence; but still I must say, that a singular coincidence of opinion with me has arisen even this very day. Before this debate began, a question was put to my noble friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—whether he holds his office provisionally or not, I cannot say, but no one is better qualified to hold it permanently, for the interests of the country—respecting the present state of the army in Portugal, which shows the difficulty in which that small army is placed. And, while I am upon the present subject, I must state, that, with respect to the British troops in that country, the last accounts received go to prove, that all our measures were too tardy; and that, if the proper course had been sooner adopted, there would have been a much better chance of its being effectual. I must confess that I thought so at the time that this course was adopted; and, had I been present, I should not have gone the lengths which some of my noble friends did, in giving it their approval. At the same time I will also say, that, with respect to the influence which such a proceeding would have upon the whole of the Peninsula, I would most undoubtedly have supported it, had it been done at a period when it would be justified by sound policy and by a prospect of success—a consideration which should be always held in view by sound statesmen. But, feeling that we are embarrassed by having at this time adopted such a course, and that we are likely to be more so, I must recur to those measures of policy adopted by the right hon. gentleman in his declaration to the government of France, "that, come what would, England would not interfere with the invasion of Spain, although such a proceeding must be considered a gross infraction of the rights of nations." And is it not well known—and I say this, as every man in the country is now informed on the subject—that one word from our government, on the principle of preventing the invasion of Spain by France—that principle which induced this country to oppose the views of Louis the 14th, and which caused our resistance to the aggression of Napoleon—is it not, I say, well known, that one word, resolutely spoken, would have prevented the last invasion of the French; which was as bad, and as unprincipled, as either of the former? Taking these things into my consideration—viewing, as I do, the conduct which the right hon. gentleman has pursued, both with respect to Spain and Portugal—I must confess that I feel no ground for confidence in his counsels; and further, that I think them very doubtful. Again, upon the general foreign policy of the country, I feel called upon to state, that I place no confidence in the right hon. gentleman's administration. Let those who differ from me upon this point, show me a single act calculated to secure my confidence upon this subject.

But it has been said, and much stress has been laid upon it by a noble friend of mine, that the right hon. gentleman is the friend of civil and religious liberty. That he is so far a friend of religious liberty as to be the strenuous supporter of Catholic emancipation, I am ready to admit. That he means to do every thing in his power in support of it, I also agree; but, giving the right hon. gentleman credit for this disposition, I must say, that in what he has done in the construction of the administration which he is now forming, he has done more to injure that question, than has been done for a long time by any individual. If he means to serve that measure, the course he has taken is, in my opinion, altogether a wrong one. But, leaving that for a moment, there are other tests by which to judge of the question, whether or not the right hon. gentleman is a friend to religious liberty. If I could place reliance on the public reports of what has occurred in another place—and I see no reason to doubt their accuracy—the right hon. gentleman has proclaimed his opposition to the repeal of the Test act. On what principle of religious liberty the right hon. gentleman can oppose the repeal of those useless and very annoying acts, I am at a loss to know; still less can I understand the principle—if principle it be—if this opposition is given with the view of promoting the Catholic question. In what way the continuance of an injustice to one sect, can be supposed to accelerate the removal of an injury from another, I am unable to guess; unless, indeed—and if the right hon. gentleman acts with this view, I am sure he will find himself disappointed—it is by continuing the evils which the Dissenters complain of, to induce them to make common cause with the Catholics, for the removal of religious disabilities in general.

So much for religious liberty! I will now say a word as to the right non. gentleman's alleged advocacy of civil liberty; and I must own, that I have heard the declaration with surprise, if not with astonishment. When and where has the right hon. gentleman so shown himself? If my recollection of the events of the last thirty years do not fail me, it will be found, that there has not been an invasion of civil liberty during that time, of which the right hon. gentleman has not been the prominent supporter. I will not dwell on his known opposition to parliamentary reform, on the ground of which some of my noble and hon. friends have been accused for giving their support to the new administration; for that is not a question to which they are pledged, nor on which the party to which they belong are agreed. As to the noble marquis (Lansdown), in whom I am disposed to place every confidence, I do not recollect to have heard him ever advocate that measure in his place in parliament; but I believe that, if the noble marquis be a reformer, he is the most moderate of all moderate reformers. The question of parliamentary reform is not, I admit, so uniformly supported, nor has it at present the public opinion so strongly in its favour, as that it should be made a sine qua non in forming an administration. There was a time when the expression of my opinion in favour of reform exposed me to obloquy. But I still adhere to the opinion which I always entertained on this subject. I have always maintained, that reform ought to keep pace with the march of human intellect—that its progression should be gradual; and though, at one time, the advocacy of such opinions might have been designated as traitorous, yet it is a consolation to me to find, that many of those who were most opposed to me on this subject are now adopting the same course on many important questions.

It is not, then, my lords, I repeat it, because of the right hon. gentleman's opposition to parliamentary reform, that I object to him as one opposed to civil liberty. But I cannot conceal from myself the fact, that, within the last few years, very many laws have been passed hostile to that liberty; and to each and every one of these the right hon. gentleman has given his efficient support; and, unless the right hon. gentleman can retrace his steps, unless he can erase some of them which still remain on the Statute-book, I can have no confidence in him, as the friend of civil liberty. There is nothing more easy than to bring the opinions of the right hon. gentleman on this subject to the test. There is now existing on the Statute-book one of those invasions of civil liberty to which I have alluded. It is that which makes the second conviction for a political libel subject to a sentence of transportation—the most flagrant violation of the liberty of the press which has been attempted in modern times. Now, this is a matter capable of instant proof. Let my noble friend (the marquis of Lansdown) only bring forward a motion for the repeal of this act, and he will find in me a ready and zealous supporter; but I fear that he will, at the same time, find in the right hon. gentleman an able and zealous opponent. It is on these grounds that I feel myself bound to declare, that I have no confidence in the administration of the right hon. gentleman. The sentiments I now utter are my own. I speak only for myself; for I regret to say, that I am now almost without political connections of any kind. I own that I feel some distrust of my own judgment in finding myself opposed to some of my noble and hon. friends, with whom I have hitherto concurred during the whole of my life; but, if it be a consolation to me to know, that theme are some whom I highly value, who still continue to think as I do, it does not diminish my regret at being compelled to dissent from so many with whom I formerly acted, and whom I still continue so highly to respect. I now feel myself almost a solitary individual. Nothing can be further from my intention than a union with the party in opposition to government; for, from that party, on most questions, I differ as widely as the poles are asunder. Neither can I join those who support the administration; in the construction of which, as an administration, I have no confidence. The only course left to me is to adhere to those principles which I have professed throughout life; and, when I find that the measures of government accord with those principles, they shall have my support. When they introduce matters repugnant, in my opinion, to those principles, I will oppose them: but I deprecate the idea of joining the standard of a party, as a party opposed to government. Those who have done me the honour to attach any importance to my opinions are aware, that I have, for some years, been withdrawing myself more and more from a direct interference in the politics of the country. As long, however, as I do remain, I am anxious to keep in that situation, in which I can do what I consider the most good. To take a more active part in public business, is quite out of my intention. "Non eademœtas, non mens." With the noble marquis I concur in most questions; and to him I will, on every occasion, give my support, where I conscientiously can; but, at the same time, I must declare, that I will never shrink from opposing any, and every measure which I cannot honestly and consistently approve. I shall not, however, again embark upon the troubled sea of politics, upon which, all my life, till now, I have navigated—God knows, with how little success; but, at the same time, with the consolation of knowing that I have done so with an honest and approving conscience. —The noble earl sat down amidst loud cheers.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.