Lords Sitting of 17 May 1827

NEW ADMINISTRATION.
Earl Manvershoped he might be permitted to trespass for a few moments on their lordships' time, whilst he stated the motives which had induced him to refuse his
854
confidence to the present administration. Of the difficulties which the right hon. gentleman at the head of it had experienced in forming the new government, he knew nothing but from newspaper authority; and of the motives which induced the late cabinet to resign, he was equally uninformed, except from the same source; but surely it could not be denied that the basis on which the present administration rested must be Catholic emancipation. He understood that a vital change in the constitution was the object of the present government; and with that impression on his mind, having resisted that important question in every shape and form for the last twenty-five years, he trusted he should not be stigmatized as acting from any factious motives, if he felt it impossible to afford his support to the advisers of the Crown.
Lord De Dunstanvillesaw no reason for withholding his confidence from the present ministry. With regard to the question of Catholic emancipation, he thought that the Protestant religion would gain more by conceding than by opposing the claims of the Catholics; that more converts would be made by emancipation than by any other means.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that he could not avoid making a few observations on the situation in which the existing administration was placed, and on the transactions which had recently taken place; but he felt it necessary first to declare, that he belonged to no class of opposition, whether factious or otherwise. He differed from the noble earl as to the support which should be given to the present administration, seeing the declaration which had been repeatedly made, that it was formed on the principles of lord Liverpool's government: therefore any resistance to such a ministry must be founded on personal objections,—a course which he decidedly disavowed. The present government had been called a provisional one. He thought that more importance was attached to that circumstance than it deserved. If it pleased the king to engage any portion of his ministry for limited service, as he did his troops, he saw no great reason to complain of such an exertion of the royal prerogative. No man who knew the abilities of the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs so well as he did, could doubt his capacity to discharge the duties of his situation; and that being

855
the case, it did not appear to him a matter of much importance whether he held it permanently or not. There were, however, some circumstances connected with the formation of the administration which prevented him from giving it his entire confidence. He referred to the condition in which a question which had occupied much of their lordships' consideration was placed. He had never viewed that question in the same light as other noble lords, either as to the great benefit or the great danger which was supposed to be likely to result from its success. He thought that the results which were anticipated, on either side, were in a great degree imaginary. He had, notwithstanding, always given his support to the measure; and it was probable that he should still continue to do so. Some noble lords, however, entertained a stronger opinion than he did of the importance of emancipation; and that those noble lords, having those views, should pass over to the other side of the House to support the administration, and even to form a part of it, did certainly appear to him very extraordinary. It was, he repeated, extraordinary, that those noble lords should so act, when they knew it was not even to be attempted to make Catholic emancipation a cabinet measure—that, in fact, a species of engagement existed, by which the administration was bound not to make either that question, or any matter connected with it, a cabinet measure. In lord Liverpool's administration, when the majority of the government was opposed to Catholic emancipation, it could not, of course, be made a cabinet measure; but now that an immense majority of the ministers maintained that the measure was indispensable, urgent, and admitting of no delay, that these individuals should agree to postpone it indefinitely was indeed most extraordinary. For that the measure was practically so postponed, and its success thereby rendered infinitely less probable than at any former period, could not, he thought, be doubted. There was a matter connected with this subject to which he wished to direct their lordships' attention. He alluded to the report of a speech addressed by a right rev. friend of his, to the clergy of his diocess. Most of their lordships had, no doubt, seen that report, which he had ascertained to be perfectly correct. The speech in question advanced the most cogent arguments against the probability of the speedy
856
success of the Catholic question. How those arguments ought to be considered—whether as coming under the knowledge of the present administration—whether any of the present administration were to be considered as responsible for them—whether, finally, ministers were to be looked upon as the authors of those arguments, he did not know: but their lordships would observe, that this speech was not made on an unimportant occasion. The occasion was one of great solemnity. He would ask the rev. bench, if they should lend their support to the government—as most likely they would—whether they would not adopt that course mainly in consequence of the cogency of the arguments employed by his right rev. friend? He would ask the right reverend bench, whether they did not think that the chance of the Catholic question being carried was not further removed at the present moment, than it was under the administration of lord Liverpool? The noble lords who had gone over to the other side of the House declared, that the main cause of their adherence to the administration was the probability, nay, the certainty, which they saw of the Catholic question being carried. If such were their opinions, why had they entered into an engagement to get rid of the question? It could only be upon the principle that the end sanctified the means employed to attain it; for certainly such conduct was, to say the least of it, strangely inconsistent. On the one hand, the right rev. bench supported the administration, because they were persuaded the question was out of all danger; and, on the other, the noble lords who had passed over to the government side of the House professed to do the same thing, because they thought emancipation would speedily be accomplished. This state of things, though very convenient perhaps, did not present to his mind that plain, honest, and direct, course of proceeding which was so congenial to the minds of the people of this country; and he was much mistaken if the feeling which he entertained on that point was not becoming general throughout the empire. He did not mean to impute bad motives to any person; and, with respect to the question of Catholic emancipation itself, he attached much less importance to it than most of their lordships. He thought that the fair and honourable character of public men was of infinitely more importance; and at the present

857
moment it appeared to him, that that I character was liable to be called in question. Under all circumstances, he must repeat, that it was impossible for him to give his entire confidence to the administration.
The Earl of Abingdonrose for the purpose of denying what it seemed the intention of the last noble speaker to assert; namely, that the noble lords who sat on that side of the House constituted a factious opposition. Though he spoke from those benches, he trusted he should not be classed as one of a factious Opposition. He had always been the strenuous supporter of a regular government, and entertained a strong feeling of loyalty for his king, and of attachment to the constitution of the country, in church and state. An adherence to those principles had supported the country through all its difficulties, and had procured for it permanent peace and prosperity. A departure from those principles he considered dangerous to the welfare of the empire. Such being his opinion, he found it impossible to give his support to the administration.
Lord Hollandsaid, that in the discharge of his duty as a peer of parliament, he had always endeavoured, though perhaps he might not always have been successful, to confine the observations which he addressed to their lordships to such points as were immediately under consideration; or at least to such as were likely soon to be brought under consideration. However, since the meeting of parliament, after the recess, it had been greatly the fashion to enter into discussions totally irrelevant to any motions before the House, and, instead of standing upon general principles, to make professions of political faith, not only of the government or the individuals representing it, but of almost every person who sat on that side of the House. As it generally happened that people caught something of the manners of the company amongst whom they sat, it would not be surprising if he should himself indulge in some of those irregular observations of which he had heard so much from others. He, amongst others, had been put on his trial—not for any opinion he had expressed—not for any vote he had given—not for any principle he had abandoned—but only because he had changed his seat. He was called upon to explain why he had changed his seat in that House; and this call, be it
858
observed, was made particularly by those who had themselves changed their seats at the same time that he had changed his. He believed he might venture to say, that he disagreed upon every point with the noble lords who had lately left the king's service. There was scarcely one of the various topics which pressed upon the consideration of parliament, with respect to which he did not disagree with them. That very circumstance, then, would sufficiently account for his supporting the remnant of the late administration, when he found those noble lords opposing it. Such a course of conduct proved the consistency of both parties. The noble lord who spoke last but one, had put the withdrawal of his confidence from the government entirely on the ground of the state of the Catholic question; although at the same time he said, that the government was formed on the principle of lord Liverpool's administration. Now, he held, that the government was not founded on the principle of lord Liverpool's administration. The present government did not hold out the same prospects as that of lord Liverpool. He had heard it stated by those who had left the administration, that the principle of lord Liverpool's government was, that there should be a person who was inimical to the Catholic claims at the head of it. He had heard it so stated in that House. Either that statement was true or it was not. The noble lords opposite alleged, that it was one of their reasons for retiring from office, that the principle of lord Liverpool's administration had been departed from, in the appointment of a prime minister who was favourable to the Catholic claims. Let it not be supposed that he was blaming the noble lords for retiring from the administration. On the contrary, he rejoiced so much at that event, that he was, perhaps, too prone to view it with a certain degree of favour. He thought they had a perfect right to resign if they thought proper. They had, however, stated in justification of those proceedings, that the principles of lord Liverpool's administration had been departed from. That had been stated over and over again; and the particular in which this departure was most evident was the appointment of a person to be at the head of the government who was friendly to the Catholic claims. A noble lord who had lately been called up to that House, had told their lordships,

859
that he knew of no such principle existing in lord Liverpool's government. If, however, such were the principle of lord Liverpool's government, in the opinion of all those members of it who were inimical to the Catholic claims, and such opinion were not communicated to those members who were friendly to it, he must say that the latter did not seem to have been dealt fairly, directly, and plainly by. He would now, having been called upon, explain the reasons why he sat on that side of the House, and why he was able to support the government. They were shortly these—because, on most points, he thought he could agree with those who conducted the government. He would briefly state what were the points to which he alluded; but he begged to inform their lordships that they must not look at only one side of the picture. When he was asked to account for giving his support to the government, he begged in return to ask, what would be the consequences if he did not? And here he wished it to be understood, that, though speaking of himself, he meant his observations to apply to persons of much greater consequence than he could pretend to. Whether the present government was composed precisely of those individuals whom he would recommend to the king for his ministers, he had no right to say; but he would ask this plain question—"If the government cannot stand without such support as I can give it, what will be the consequences of its falling?" The consequences of its being overturned must of necessity be the establishment in full power, of that very party and those principles which he had spent his whole political life in opposing. He thought it would be for the advantage of the country to prevent the consequences which he had pointed out; but he did not think that it would tend to the dignity of parliament, or the honour of public men, to be constantly harping on the state of the government, without bringing it to the test, whether the majority of the House placed confidence in it or not.—The noble lords opposite found fault with being called a factious Opposition; but, when they had sat a little longer on those benches, they would not be very sore about the use of any particular phrase. If the phrase meant, that the noble lords were doing any thing illegal or improper, in their own view of the subject, they had a right to reject it. He saw nothing unconstitutional in their
860
conduct; though he certainly could not help discovering something like impatience in their proceedings. Their conduct reminded him of an anecdote which a noble earl had related, more than twenty years ago. To the best of his recollection it run thus:—"It happened, once upon a time, in a certain country, that all the men were changed into women, and all the women were changed into men. In the course of the transformation, it fell to the lot of the maids of honour to be changed into dragoon officers, and the dragoon officers to be changed into maids of honour. The dragoon officers who had become maids of honour, were at first accustomed to take too long strides, and behaved in other particulars a little indecorously. However, at the end of a month, they became as decorous, and as decent maids of honour as were to be found in any court of Europe. But, when the maids of honour became dragoon officers—oh, such a set of quarrelsome, impudent, troublesome, men were never before seen in the world. They were constantly engaged in swearing, drinking, and breaking heads. They were also in the habit of placing themselves at the head of the blackguard boys who went about with Guy Fawkes, and seizing that opportunity for exciting riot and alarm, and almost setting the town on fire" [a laugh]. He hoped the noble lords would not be angry with him for repeating the story, because it was in some degree applicable to most oppositions. The task which they had undertaken had long been his. He saw nothing factious in their exercising their undoubted privilege, of endeavouring to enforce their opinions. He only wished that they would bring forward some plain and direct question, for he considered it derogatory from the dignity of the House, and injurious to the service of the country, for public men to be flinging dirt at each other, and speculating as to what might be the principles of this or of that man. Why not bring the matter to a direct question, with respect to which men might honourably differ or honourably agree. If it be asked, what principles I have abandoned, what opinions I have altered? I answer, none. The present was not the first time in the course of his political life, that he had sat on the side of the House from which he was speaking, to support an administration in which he had confidence. What were the circumstances under which he last sat on those benches?

861
The Catholic question had been discussed and lost; subsequently to which an administration was formed, chiefly of persons who were favourable to the measure. That administration was, he believed, formed in the earnest hope that, by means of a prudent, conciliatory system of government, and by keeping the question for some time at rest, the country would be gradually prepared to accede to the measure. When he supported that administration on those grounds, he was not taunted with inconsistency; though he felt then, as strongly as he did now, the importance of removing the remaining disabilities under which the Catholics laboured. There was nothing which he would not do, either in the House or out of the House, to forward that great question; and even to accelerate it. But, how should he best accelerate it? By supporting the present government, or by opposing it; and opposing it, too, for the purpose of restoring to power the sincere but inveterate enemies of emancipation? The present administration was, in some degree, composed of the materials of the old one; but it contained none of the strongest enemies of emancipation who were included in the late cabinet. A noble lord had stated, that he (lord Holland) had been constantly opposing every act of lord Liverpool's government. Now, during the last three years, he had never divided in that House without voting on the same side with his majesty's present President of the Council. He might safely say, that, during the period he had mentioned, he had not divided twice against lord Liverpool's government on any subject except the Catholic question. Was it to be expected that he should, at the present moment, ask the right hon. gentleman at the head of the government, whether he intended to pursue the same policy with respect to foreign affairs, and particularly with reference to the South American States, and also with respect to commercial matters, with which, in the main, he had for some years past concurred? Was he to ask the right hon. gentleman, whether he still persisted in his admiration of Mr. Pitt, in which he (lord H.) never could join? If such a course were pursued, the differences between public men would be perpetual. All views of government and legislation would be as isolated and unconcerted as the learned lord on the cross bench described the late resignations to have been. That declaration certainly
862
surprised him. The learned lord said, that he had himself long intended to retire, and that it was a consolation to know it. He had, however, kept his intention in abeyance for forty years, before he carried it into execution.—But to return to the question.—On what subjects, he wished to know, did he disagree with lord Liverpool's government? The lords seceders (he really did not know how to designate the mass of retired ministers) had their share of responsibility in all the acts of lord Liverpool's government with which he agreed; and therefore he might say that he agreed with them. When he considered the changes which had taken place in our commercial system, and the policy which had been observed with respect to the South American States—when he looked at the situation in which the country now stood, with reference to foreign powers, and contrasted it with that in which it stood immediately before the right hon. gentleman now at the head of the government acceded to office, he could not help thinking, that the changes which had taken place would not have happened but for the right hon. gentleman; and that if he were no longer in the administration, but, in his stead, the noble lords who had resigned, a very different line of policy would be pursued. He thought, then, that though disagreeing with the administration on some points, he might honourably give it his support.—An allusion had been made to parliamentary reform. No person had a right to taunt him on that subject. Twenty years ago he formed part of a government for half a year; and, during that time, he never felt it his duty to submit the question of parliamentary reform to the consideration of parliament. In early life he had certainly formed a strong opinion on the subject; and he still differed from many of the opinions of the right hon. gentleman at the head of the government respecting it. However, it so happened, that the question of parliamentary reform had never been mooted in their lordships' House during his recollection. A vote had never been asked on it; but it was his firm determination to vote upon that and every other question (excepting, perhaps, with regard to the propriety of bringing the Catholic question forward this session) precisely in the same way as he would have done had he retained his former seat. He admitted that want of confidence was a good

863
reason for withholding it from the government in which that individual was placed; but it was too much to charge individuals who did not feel that degree of distrust, with acting inconsistently in supporting that minister, because they did not agree with him on all speculative points. The worst of this mode of argument was, that it imposed a sort of tax on political opinion. Besides which, it led to crimination and recrimination; in the daily practice of which no great body of men could indulge without lowering their character in the opinion of the public. He, therefore, thought the practice unsalutary. When he heard a noble duke declare, that he had no hesitation in stating the person at the head of the government to be the most profligate minister that ever existed; and when he recollected, that that noble duke had supported a government which had placed in the hands of that individual the important trust of negotiating with foreign powers, and also of managing the business of his majesty's government in the other House of parliament, he could not help thinking, that the noble duke was himself guilty of that inconsistency with which he was so ready to charge others, who had given a cordial, disinterested, and uniform, support to lord Liverpool's administration, whilst the noble duke's support had been rather lukewarm on sundry topics. It was impossible fairly to charge him (lord Holland) with inconsistency in the course he was now pursuing with respect to the Catholic question; for he thought he was doing all in his power to advance that cause, by giving his support to government, rather than by withdrawing it at the risk of the formation of a new administration, decidedly hostile to emancipation. There was one point to which he begged leave to direct the attention of their lordships. It was a question in which the body of the Dissenters were deeply concerned. They proposed to bring their case before parliament during the present session, if, on better consideration, they should not think proper to adopt another course. He wished, however, to state fairly to the House, that, if he should be called on to move for the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, he would do so. That was a question which had never been moved in the House in his time. Those persons who affected to idolize the memory of Mr. Pitt, ought to consider what had been the
864
conduct of that minister, before they condemned others for inconsistency. Did Mr. Pitt never form part of an administration the members of which differed on particular points? Did he not, when chancellor of the Exchequer, move Parliamentary Reform? Did he not continue, year after year, to recommend the abolition of the Slave-trade, though he had heard persons say, that, if Mr. Pitt had exerted himself to the utmost of his ability, he might have carried the latter measure sooner than it was carried. Yet he never heard it said, that Mr. Pitt had dishonoured himself by differing from his colleagues on those questions. Those persons who were most desirous that Mr. Pitt should be thought highly of, described, as the subversion of the Protestant interest, the measure which Mr. Pitt was most earnest to carry into execution. Were he disposed to go more minutely into the history of Mr. Pitt, he should have little difficulty in proving, that he often sat in a cabinet, where the difference of opinion that prevailed rendered it what might be considered a provisional government.—He would now say a few words as to the declared motives of the noble lords who had resigned. He had at once to declare, that all notions of concerting, and of dictating to the king in the exercise of his prerogative, was mere stuff and nonsense. If those noble lords believed, that the appointment of the right hon. gentleman at the head of the government would be injurious, they did right to resign; and he thought, that if they did not do wrong, they at least acted very foolishly in not concerting. He thought further, that with their opinions it would be perfectly constitutional to combine for the purpose of persuading his majesty to reconsider the exercise of his prerogative. He would go a step further, and say, that no political event, no public proceeding, had ever given him such heartfelt joy as their resignation. He was ready to thank them for what they had done. He agreed with those noble individuals in thinking, that the appointment of the right hon. gentleman was a great step towards the accomplishment of that measure which they deprecated. A noble baron had stated, that he would oppose the government because he thought its present construction, and the exclusion of the exclusionists, was likely ultimately to lead to some relaxation of the restrictive laws

865
against the Catholics. That was all very well, so far as it went; but then the noble baron turned round, and called upon those who supported the Catholic question to vote against the ministers, because that question was abandoned. This might be a very good mode of getting votes from two parties. To one the noble baron would say, "You must oppose the government, for it is clear they intend to carry the Catholic question, of which we disapprove;" and, in the next breath, he would turn round to the other party, and say, "You must he blind if you do not see that the government has completely abandoned the question—that they have put it off ad Grœcas calendas." This was like painting black and white with the same brush.—The government was not exactly what he could wish it to be; but, being compelled to make his choice between two things, neither of which he perfectly approved, he could not be blamed for taking that which he liked best. He had made his option to support the government; though he wished some of its principles were other than they were. It was impossible that the supporters of a great government should not see in its measures much which they would wish to have altered. The allegiance of party did not imply the surrender of opinion on every point. He liked the measures of the government in the gross; and thought that, by supporting it, he was assisting the cause of religious liberty. He differed from the views of all the noble lords who had retired from office. With respect to the learned lord who had quitted the wool-sack, however mischievous he might conceive his public conduct to hare been to the liberties of this country, he felt great regard for him, on account of the personal courtesy with which he had treated him. Nevertheless, he could not help expressing his surprise at having heard the learned lord say, that he had resigned his office for the sake of civil and religious liberty. Was it by constantly opposing the admission of one third of his majesty's subjects to the enjoyment of equal rights, that he manifested his attachment for religious liberty? Then, with respect to civil liberty, during thirty years that he had been in parliament, he never recollected any bill which directly or indirectly tended to abridge civil liberty, that the learned lord, and most of those who sat around him, had
866
not supported. For the reasons which he had advanced, he would give the government his support.
The Earl of Winchilseadeclared his intention to support any measures emanating from either side of the House, which he conceived to be calculated to promote the welfare of the country. The only means of forming an opinion, with respect to future conduct was, to look at what had been the tenor of the past. What confidence, then, could be placed in an administration which had been formed out of a coalition of the most opposite parties? What security for sincerity—what pledge of uprightness—could such a government give? It had been stated, in the other House of Parliament, that the administration was to be conducted on the principles of lord Liverpool's government. But the noble lord had just informed the House, that the administration was not to be conducted on those principles. For that open and manly avowal, he returned the noble lord his sincere thanks. Their lordships now knew how matters stood. There was now an end of the bone of contention which had existed for so many years. The sacrifice of opinion had not, it was clear, been made by the Whig party. It must have been made, in a certain degree, by the individual at the head of the government. From the observation which he had made of that individual's career, he believed he had made the profession of Tory principles only the stepping-stone to the eminence he had attained. He had no personal hostility to the individual. He had never possessed the honour of his acquaintance. He, however, entertained a strong political hostility towards him, which was founded on a review of some of the principal acts of his public life. Public acts were public property, and formed a fit subject for comment by a British senator, in the discharge of his duty. There were some parts of the public conduct of the present head of the government which had made a strong impression on his mind. There were circumstances connected with the political history of that right hon. gentleman, which were calculated to excite suspicion and alarm. Let the House call to its recollection the conduct of that right hon. individual, on the occasion of an important trial which occupied the attention of that House. There was not that straight-forward, open, and consistent line of conduct observable in

867
the political dealings of that right hon. gentleman, for which the House and the country had a right to look, in one who held the first situation in his majesty's government. When he considered that the present government was supported by individuals who all their lives were distinguished by their zeal in forwarding the question of Catholic emancipation—when he recollected that the powerful prerogative of the Crown had been exerted, in selecting persons favourable to that measure—he owned he felt alarm at such a state of things. If, as it was confidently said, the question of Catholic emancipation was to be carried by the present ministers, in God's name let them at once honestly and openly say that such was their intention. Let not the country be deceived by a show of neutrality, when the intentions of ministers were to carry that very question. Feeling strongly the impolicy and danger of conceding emancipation to the Catholics, he would, to the last hour of his life, raise his humble voice in opposition to their claims.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the noble baron opposite had shown a degree of official soreness which he had not expected from him, and which appeared to have no other foundation than the existence of an Opposition, which was usual on occasions like the present, and whose right to question the proceedings of government his noble friend seemed so desirous to control. He hoped, however, that his noble friend would have a better regard for the useful rights of an Opposition, and not apply the term "factious" to those who felt it their duty to stand forward on the present occasion, for no other purpose than simply to ascertain the principles on which his majesty's government had been formed. His noble friend had declared, that he differed from those individuals who had left his majesty's councils, on every topic; and yet he now supported a government, which was said to maintain the same principles on which the late government was founded. Now, he could not exactly comprehend why his noble friend should have opposed the government of the late lord Liverpool, and yet avow his support of the present administration, if the fact were so, that the principles of both were similar. The truth, however, was, that the country was wholly at a loss to know the principles of the present government; and he could not but consider, that it would be highly
868
convenient and expedient, if the noble viscount opposite would at once inform the House as to what those principles were. He was of opinion that the noble viscount should distinctly state whether any and what engagement ministers had entered into with those who gave them their support. His noble friend had avowed, that in going over to the other side of the House, he had not changed his principles. If it was the case, however, that the present administration was founded on the same principles as those professed by lord Liverpool's government, he felt inclined to think that his noble friend would find the seat which he had taken not the most comfortable. What was the security held, in the other House of Parliament, by those who professed the opinions of his noble friend? Did the mint offer that security, or the woods and forests? Had any of those individuals in the other House, who had avowed their support of government, taken any official situation, by which they were identified with the acts of ministers? Did his noble friend and his new supporters forget that the right hon. gentleman at the head of the government proposed to form an administration on the principles of lord Liverpool; by which means the Catholic question could not by possibility be carried? Where, then, would be found any desire on the part of the right hon. gentleman to push forward the claims of the Catholics? and on what other ground had the right hon. gentleman claimed the support of that party, who now came forward to give him their countenance and assistance?—His noble friend had declared, that the Whigs had not compromised their principles in joining the present administration; but the Whigs as a party, were no longer in existence. That name, which at one time was connected with all that was high and honourable—that name, under which his noble friend had, for so many years, rendered his services to the country, following the footsteps of his ancestors, and supporting their principles—that name was for ever annihilated, and in future would exist only in the records of the country. The Whigs, as a party, might have had their errors; but the name was associated with many noble recollections; it was the great land-mark to which the country looked with confidence, whenever a period of national difficulty occurred. The party, however, was now no more; and it could not be concealed,

869
that their extinction was occasioned by their late unworthy alliance, and by that sacrifice of personal dignity, of which there was no similar example in the history of the country. Was it possible to look back—not for the last three weeks, but for the last three years—and call to recollection that system of adulation which had been practised by some of the members of his majesty's government towards that party whose political existence was now no more? Was it possible to remember the flattery which had been used, and which had so disgusted the public mind, and not perceive that the coalition which was now effected had long been preconcerted? There existed, however, one honourable exception to the sacrifice of dignity and consistency, and that exception was afforded by his noble friend behind him (lord Grey), whose speech on a late occasion was distinguished by an eloquence to which no words could do justice. If high and honourable feeling—if consistency of political conduct—were in these times worthy of approval, that speech would reflect an honourable lustre on the character of his noble friend. That speech had removed every inch of ground from the noble lord opposite. Religious liberty was one of the reasons assigned by his noble friend for the course he had pursued; but the speech of the noble lord entirely crushed that argument, and the country would henceforth learn to form a better estimate of the value of such professions.—But there were circumstances connected with this coalition which required explanation. It had been publicly stated, that the right hon. gentleman, now at the head of the cabinet, received an intimation, prior to the formation of the ministry, that if he were placed at the head of affairs, a certain party would give him their assistance. He had one or two observations to offer on this proposal. The first was, that if such an intimation had taken place, it should have been publicly stated in parliament. In the next place, such a union of interests was, on principle, highly objectionable; because, the responsible leaders of a party always in opposition to the government should not be allowed suddenly to give that government their support; unless they consented to take office, and were thereby, in some measure responsible for the assistance they afforded. On constitutional principles he objected to such a proceeding; and he hoped it would
870
not be found, that the leading minister in the House of Commons had been holding communion with individuals of opposite principles, for the purpose of ousting those with whom he had been acting. Hearing these things pretty broadly hinted, and knowing that there were prima facie proofs of conduct worse than this, he was justified in viewing the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, with reference to the late arrangements, with the greatest distrust. His noble friend (lord Lansdown) had given proof that the acceptance of office was not an object of desire to him; but there were others, who, like the spectres described by the poet, stood in miserable nakedness on the banks of the Styx, in expectation of being ferried over:—
"Stabant orantes primi transmittere eursum, Tendebantque manus, ripæ ulterioris amore."
His noble friend, he was sure, was not over desirous to possess himself of office; and when he conferred with his noble friend upon the subject, he told him that he had every disposition to support an administration of which he should he a member, but that he could not bring himself to support a government of which Mr. Canning should form the head. His noble friend, no doubt, believed that, by passing to the other side of the House, the Catholic cause would be forwarded. That cause, however, could not be accelerated by any ministerial arrangement, so long as it was known that a disposition hostile to it existed in a high quarter. Although he professed feelings of the greatest distrust towards the present government, he did not mean to oppose its measures through any factious feeling; but it was his firm determination at the same time to view every measure brought forward by ministers with the greatest suspicion and distrust.—With regard to the supposition, that the Catholic cause would be forwarded by the preponderance of interest in its favour, in consequence of the new arrangements, that circumstance could have no other effect, than to excite hopes in Ireland that must, in the end, be blasted, and to raise the fears of Protestants in this country. No man wished more fervently than he did to see the question of Catholic emancipation carried; but he could not shut his eyes to the difficulties by which it was surrounded. If he went into the cabinet of the king, those difficulties met him there. In every church they met him. The withholding of that great national question, deprived

871
his majesty of many excellent subjects, whose talents would be devoted to his service; and, so long as the claims of the Catholics were disallowed, the sanctuaries of private life would not be respected, the ties of friendship would be violated, and those of kindred severed. In England the withholding of that measure might be called a grievance, but in Ireland it was a malediction. He therefore deprecated any attempt to awaken hopes that must end in disappointment, and be attended perhaps with worse consequences; for despair would infallibly be the result in Ireland, when the expectations so improperly excited should be blasted. He wished the question not to be agitated at present, but left to the good sense and growing liberality of the people of this country, who, he was convinced, would, at no very distant day, be induced to forego their prejudices on the subject.
Lord Goderichsaid, that the noble baron who had just sat down had frankly stated his intention of taking every opportunity, convenient or inconvenient, of manifesting to their lordships and the country his determination to carry on that which he had, in the early part of these discussions, described as an uncompromising hostility to the present government. He had plainly avowed, that his object was, by those separate, inconvenient and unsatisfactory, debates, to produce an impression on the public mind. Such might be his object; but, in effecting it, those who were thus put upon their trial had the most unjust imputations cast upon them, and were reviled as men almost incapable of honourable and proper feelings. He complained of this course as most unjust; and he declared that, if fair dealing was intended, it ought no longer to be pursued. If they were to be told that they did not deserve the confidence of the country, for God's sake let a motion be brought before the House for that purpose; he sought for nothing else. It was impossible for those who were engaged in the service of his majesty to do justice to the duties they had undertaken, if they were to be attacked in this way. When those imputations were thrown upon them they were expected to treat them with indifference. For himself; he must declare, that he should meet the decision of such a question, when it came—if ever it did come—with that perfect fearlessness which he had hitherto shown upon political questions; and, if the results should prove
872
different from his anticipations, he should still feel the greatest indifference. But he was not indifferent to the language with which he and his friends had been, for some time past, assailed. It was impossible to remain altogether insensible to the violence of that language. Did the noble lord imagine that ministers were ice or stones? True it was, that they had hitherto thought it necessary to their honour and character to repress the feelings which the language to which their lordships had recently listened, was calculated to excite in their breasts. It had hitherto been the duty of the side of the House on which he sat to repress those feelings; but he trusted that in future such a distressing necessity would cease to exist, as he expected that, in candour, a question and a vote, to determine what the real sentiments of the House were, would be introduced. He did not quarrel with the noble lord for doing all that it might be in his power to do, to hurl ministers from their present seats. If it was the opinion of noble lords in that House, and of honourable gentlemen elsewhere, that he, and those with whom he had the honour of acting, had forfeited the confidence of parliament and of the country, in the name of God, let their lordships definitively pronounce an opinion to the effect, and let the present ministry be sent about their business. But if, on the other hand, we have not deserved to be thus stigmatized; let there be an end to so petty and harassing warfare. All that he or his friends could say was, that they were anxious to meet the question fairly, if any noble lord would bring it fairly forward. But he must, once for all, protest, in the most decided manner, against being thus baited, night after night, with questions so artfully contrived, as that silence, upon the part of himself and his colleagues, could be tortured into the most unjust and injurious constructions. The questions which the noble lord had, that night, thought proper to put were not, however, of a nature, even though unanswered, to justify such conclusions; but he would, nevertheless, give, without the slightest hesitation, the most explicit answer to those questions; still maintaining that he might, with perfect propriety, stand on his right of refusal. The noble lord had inquired whether, in the formation of the present government, there had been any stipulation either in favour of or contrary to the Catholic; claims? For

873
himself, as well as for his colleagues, he could assure their lordships, that he had never heard of any such stipulation, either the one way or the other; and that, as far as he knew, it only had existence in those vague rumours to which the noble lord had thought proper to lend the weight of his name and character. If any such engagement had been proposed to him, he would at once have rejected it—he would not say with scorn, but in a manner which must have for ever precluded the renewal of a proposition of a similar nature. He had spent some time in parliament; and he must say that, during his political experience, he had never heard made, against any administration, a charge more false and groundless than that which their lordships had recently heard. For himself he could only say, that he appealed to the tenor of his whole life, as the best refutation of such a calumny. While making this assertion, he was far from accusing noble lords with having alleged that which they knew to be untrue. He doubted not that their lordships believed all that they asserted; but he was sure that their lordships and the country would concur in his opinion as to the error under which these noble lords laboured. He professed to know nothing concerning the proposals of assistance and conjunction asserted to have been tendered by those, whose usual seat was on the opposite side of the House to that of the right hon. gentleman who was at the head of the government. But even were he better instructed in this respect, he saw no reason which could induce him to be communicative. He was totally at a loss to understand how noble lords could possibly justify to themselves a system of hostility, founded upon idle and groundless rumour.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that his questions were grounded on admissions from noble lords opposite.
Viscount Goderichsaid, that the only admission of which the noble lord could avail himself was, that the right hon. gentleman at the head of the administration had done his utmost to form an efficient and powerful administration, without any sacrifice of public principle.
Lord Ellenboroughagreed with the noble viscount, but still asserted, that that administration could not go on.
Viscount Goderichsaid, that that remained to be proved, and he most anxiously desired to have the question solved
874
by a parliamentary vote. The mode of assault to which he was now directing a repulse, was not of that species which the manliness and candour of the noble lord would have induced him to expect; he had thought that the noble lord would have immediately come into collision with ministers, and fairly contested the debateable ground, instead of skirmishing at the out-posts, and annoying his opponents, without any definite object. It was contrary to the expectation which he had formed of the noble lord's conduct, to be bemired and baited daily like a malefactor. The administration was not tried, and all he desired was fair play. Ministers wished to justify their characters; they were mutually anxious to rescue themselves from such a species of harassing persecution. He would not touch upon the Catholic question, as it involved too much discussion. On the present occasion he could not, however, refrain from testifying his advocacy of that measure, as sincerely as any of his present or former colleagues. But that attachment had its bounds, and would not carry the question by main force; neither would the noble lord himself, under the circumstances. The noble lord's speech contained a most extraordinary charge. It implied, that there should be an equality on both sides on the Catholic question. He would ask the noble lord, if that was not the state of the cabinet, at the head of which lord Liverpool sat for fifteen years? And yet that cabinet did not receive the noble lord's support. He had often wished its dissolution, and now proposed it as a model. He (lord Goderich) did not adopt the principle of necessary equality upon the Catholic question; and he felt that, as the cabinet was formed with respect to it, he was left open to take office under the right hon. gentleman. The component parts of lord Liverpool's government still remained, and let the test be its acts. The remaining members of that cabinet had given their counsels to the king for more than fifteen years; and had, through good repute and through evil repute, borne the country through all its most alarming perils. Could any sacrifice of principle be alleged against the members of the present government? The political members of it repelled any such insinuation. Their principles were unchanged, and all he asked of their lordships, was to suspend their censure until proofs were adduced to justify it.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he could not but express his surprise and regret at the unexpected discussion which had taken place. He should feel most happy to give the noble lord opposite, or any other noble lord, the fullest explanation on any subject connected with his majesty's government, provided the question was brought forward on proper notice in the regular form; but he must condemn in the strongest manner, these irrelevant discussions. When any question was brought before their lordships that called for inquiry, he should feel no objection to discuss it item by item, but he would not be induced to give any explanation to rumours gleaned from newspapers, and reports gathered from the registers of past times, for the purpose of heaping odium on a government which was framed on principles as honest and as honourable as any that had ever been formed in the country. He should not, however, be betrayed by his feelings—though he left the House to judge what those feelings were—out of that track which he felt most consistent with his own character, and most conformable to the wishes of those with whom he had the honour to act. It was said by the noble lord opposite that the coalition which he (lord Lansdown) and his party had formed with Mr. Canning's government was unworthy the confidence of the country. The noble lord, also, in direct terms spoke of a correspondence carried on for unworthy motives. Such charges he at once asserted to be false. He did not mean, of course, to attach a direct falsehood to the noble lord; but his assertion was certainly one of the most extraordinary proofs of a disposition to believe that which happened to agree with his own views and wishes. He hoped his majesty's government would be judged of by its acts. The characters of public men should not be aspersed by the imputations of unworthy motives. The day would shortly come when those who were connected with that government would be found to have acted from the most disinterested, patriotic, and honourable, motives. If the noble lord who commenced the attack really credited one tenth of the reports to which he had given such ready belief, he would not be doing his duty to the House or to the country, if he did not speedily bring forward a motion, the effect of which would be, to bring the whole question before parliament. The noble lord, who had
876
stepped into the ranks of the Opposition before he knew the principles of the government he stood forward to oppose, ought in justice, and consistently with his own manliness of character, to bring forward a motion, such as that to which he had alluded. For the honour of parliament, and for the satisfaction of the country, this ought speedily to be done. Not only the character of government required that inquiry, but the character of the Opposition also demanded it; and he could assure the House, whenever that motion was brought forward, it should be readily met by his majesty's government.

CASE OF MISS TURNER.
The Earl of Eldonpresented a petition from Edward Gibbon Wakefield. The petitioner stated, that the most material allegations of the petition of William Turner were untrue. He prayed their lordships' permission to be heard personally at their lordships' bar, against any bill that might be introduced to dissolve the marriage between him and Miss Ellen Turner; and he stated in the event of their lordships' allowing him to appear at their bar, that he should be unable to avail himself of that permission, unless by an express order of the House, as he was at present confined in gaol by the judgment of the Court of King's-bench. The order of the day for a committee of the whole House was then moved. The petition of W. Turner was read by the clerk. It contained a statement of the facts relative to the marriage of Miss Turner which were proved on the trial of E. G. Wakefield. The petition of E. G. Wakefield was also read.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, he thought much credit was due to the noble and learned lord who had brought this question before their lordships, and he hoped they would do the promptest justice to the unfortunate girl who was the cause of the present proceeding. If it was their lordships' intention to act in the manner in which it was proposed for them to act, every moment was lost, if they did not at once proceed to act in that way. It was impossible for their lordships to conceive the distress and agony of mind of that unfortunate family, in whose favour it was proposed to legislate. With respect to the view he took of the question, he did think that, supposing no precedent could be found to bear upon the case, their lordships ought to go a little out of their way and adopt a

877
precedent, on a case which was so extraordinary. There was a precedent on their lordships' Journals, which, though it was not exactly in point, yet, with a little alteration, might be adopted in the present case. He alluded to the case of Miss Wharton, in the year 1691. That case, he considered, might, with a little allowance, be applied to the present one. There was certainly some difference between the two. Miss Wharton had been originally carried away by force; yet, by subsequent persuasion, the marriage had taken place with consent of the lady. In the present case, though there was no actual force employed, yet there was—that which was equivalent to actual force—moral force used, in the manner in which the young lady had been taken from the place where she had been placed for instruction, to the place where the ceremony of the marriage was gone through. He felt, however, somewhat relieved from the anxiety under which he laboured, by the remark made by a learned lord, whose opinion was entitled to considerable weight. That learned lord stated, that, in many instances, fraud was equivalent to force; and, if there ever could arise an occasion in which fraud ought to be considered equal to force, it was the occasion now before their lordships. In that case justice could only be real, in proportion as it was prompt. If the cause were to be tried in the Ecclesiastical court, there was no saying for how long a period it might continue in that court, before a decision would be pronounced. He understood, besides, that relief could not be administered in the Ecclesiastical court, because the person who alone could prove the facts of the case could not he brought forward as a witness. It had been suggested, that it would be better to legalize the admission of that particular evidence in the Ecclesiastical court, which at present could not be admitted, rather than meet the case promptly by an act of parliament. But, if such a course were to be adopted, it would be attended with great delay; and besides, the admissibility of the lady's evidence, in the present case, might be argued against, under the circumstances of the course which had been suggested. The law would be considered as an ex post facto law, and could not with propriety be applied to the present unfortunate case. Whether the marriage was a good one or not, he thought their lordships would feel themselves justified,
878
under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to pass a law, declaring that the marriage which had taken place between E. G. Wakefield and Ellen Turner, whether a valid marriage by the law of Scotland or not, should be considered null and void.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, be could assure their lordships that no man had read with greater horror the proceedings of Wakefield than he had. There was no man who wished more sincerely than he did, that the young lady in the present case could be released from the engagement which she had entered into; but, as a member of their lordships' House, he had a duty to perform, superior to that which was dictated by his feelings. It was his duty to guard the law of the country, and to guard the proceedings of their lordships' House; and to prevent any precedent from being formed, which might, in his opinion, be prejudicial to the future welfare of the country. If, in the present case, it was proposed to form a precedent, there was a danger to be guarded against, of making the House pass a precedent upon subjects which went to the feelings of a man. On such subjects reason only was to be consulted. With respect to the question before the House, he begged to say, in the first place, that the case of "Campbell and Wharton" formed no precedent that could apply to the present. The peculiar circumstances of that case were, that the moment marriage had taken place, Mr. Campbell absconded, and therefore was out of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical court, and it was impossible to render him amenable to any court in this country. This circumstance formed a most material distinction. He desired to know what was the jurisdiction of their lordships' House? In the high court of parliament all injuries which the subject might sustain, and for which he could get no redress in the common courts of justice, would find their remedy; and therefore the high court of parliament was the last resource. There was no court which had the power of divorcing a matrimonio: the courts of Scotland possessed that power; but in this country there was no court which had such power, excepting the high court of parliament. Now, it was proposed to their lordships to take up the present case, because no court in this country had any jurisdiction upon it. But, what was the case? The petitioner stated,

879
that he was informed the Ecclesiastical court would not take the evidence of the parties. He was not sure that that was the fact; and he should like to hear the best legal authorities on the subject, before he made up his mind. In the first place, before their lordships proceeded in this view of the case, they ought to call for the assistance of those judicial authorities which, by the constitution, they were permitted to consult, to ascertain whether that which had been stated was the real state of the law; namely, not to take the evidence of the parties in the Ecclesiastical court. If this should prove to be a real evil, what was the direct remedy, but that their lordships should pass a law, giving a power, not only in this case, but generally, to the judge, at his discretion, not to examine the plaintiff, but to examine the parties in every case of such a nature as the present where fraud might be urged. He said, that this power should be left to the judge; for fraud might be urged for the purpose of obtaining the evidence of the parties, in cases where there was no actual appearance of fraud. The learned lord before him was aware, that in actions in the course of common law the parties could not be examined: even a trustee who had no personal interest could not be examined. But, in the court of Chancery, the parties to a cause could at all times be examined, and must be examined. If the lord Chancellor sends an order out of the court of Chancery, which was a frequent custom of that court, stating that he grants the power to any court of law to examine parties in the course of their proceedings, he administers the same remedy which was prayed for in the present case. But it was objected, that, after having this order, the cause might depend for four or five years in the Ecclesiastical court. If the form of process in that Ecclesiastical court was bad, it was for the noble lords to bring in a general bill to amend that form of process. But it might be said, that the present case was one of peculiar hardship, and that the sooner it was settled the better. That might be the case; but he was bound to think what would be the effect of the precedent that was proposed to be established. He had sat in that House for many years, and no man in it had attended more regularly than he had to the business connect-with divorce cases; and he had not the least hesitation in saying, that he had often
880
witnessed proceedings which struck him with disgust. When a case approached the time of decision, he had seen noble lords come down, and, without having heard the evidence, deciding causes, in opposition to the opinions of those who were entitled to the attention of the House. He was one who did not wish to see the jurisdiction of that House extended. The present case was, no doubt, one of gross fraud; but there were degrees of fraud. A case of minor fraud might hereafter come before their lordships, founded on the precedent of this case, and of which their lordships might be persuaded to take cognizance. Their lordships having thus furnished two precedents, a case of still minor fraud might come before the House; and their lordships would, step by step, be drawn into this situation—that whenever a man runs away with a young heiress, her parents or guardians might come to their lordships' House for relief. He did not think that their lordships intended to go so far as to legislate upon every matter of that nature; but such, he thought, was not an improbable result of forming a precedent as proposed. He had heard the petition of Mr. Turner read, and, from an extraordinary allegation which the petition contained, he should wish to have different authority than the simple statement of Mr. Turner respecting the forms of the Ecclesiastical courts. The statement he alluded to was the following —"that such marriage, as the one he prays the House to dissolve, could not, under the law of Scotland, be dissolved." There was a book with which every man who had attended to the law of Scotland, was acquainted. The book was edited by Hutcheson, and in it their lordships would find the following entry, in a case where a marriage was dissolved." The case was that of Allen, a schoolmaster, and Ann Young. It appeared, that the marriage ceremony had been regularly performed, and the girl was aged twelve years; that she was placed under Allen's care for the purpose of being taught; that undue influence, and a train of fraud and imposition had been used, to obtain her consent to the marriage; but that no consummation had taken place. This marriage was dissolved. The petitioner, however, stated, that such dissolution could not take place; and he himself had a little doubt on the subject of what the law in the Ecclesiastical

881
courts was; but he thought it preferable, at all events, to the proposed mode of proceeding, to pass a law to enable, at the discretion of the judge, parties to be examined in all cases of fraud; by which means their lordships would keep that jurisdiction which they now had, and would not extend it; to do which, he thought, in his conscience and honour, would be dangerous.
Lord Redesdalethought, he had followed the best course in referring the petition to a committee of the whole House. The present case was certainly one of considerable doubt; and he thought that, in some way or other, relief ought to be given, provided the case could be proved in point of fact. Their lordships were all aware, that, if the cause was argued in the Ecclesiastical court, it might occupy a very considerable length of time. If he mentioned the space of three or four years, he was sure he was stating a duration much shorter than that which such a proceeding might occupy. Their lordships would recollect, that the young lady in the present case knew not whether she was married or not—that her father, her uncle, and, in fact, that all the world were ignorant whether she was married or not. The case of Miss Wharton had been cited. That lady, after her divorce, married a person of the name of Ireland. The principal offender made his escape to France; but one of the conspirators was executed. The act in that case passed in the year 1691, a period when there were in that House, persons every way competent to frame it with effect; persons who had been engaged in the Revolution. The bill came up to their lordships from the other House of parliament; but he thought it preferable that the present measure should originate here, where questions of law and equity were frequently tried, and where their lordships were accustomed to have the assistance of the judges. The proceeding suggested by the noble earl could not be adopted; for their lordships must perceive, that the present case was one which was not provided for by any existing law. In cases of disputed property, delay of judgment would not alter the situation of the parties; but here there was a doubt as to whether the parties were husband and wife. In the event of the death of either of them while the suit was pending, there would be no possibility of annulling the marriage; their respective rights must remain whole and
882
entire. If Wakefield died first, the lady would be regarded as his widow, and, in that character, entitled to dower. If she died first, the alleged husband would be intitled to all his marital rights, so far as regarded her personal property, and the custody of her lands. Here, then, a man might, in this latter event, become possessed of considerable property, by means of fraud of which he had been found guilty in a court of law. He believed it was generally understood, that the lady could not be examined in the Ecclesiastical court, as to the circumstances relating to the marriage. In cases, however, of a criminal prosecution, such an examination was allowed in the temporal courts, and Miss Wharton, under such circumstances, appeared as a witness. It was suggested, that a bill should be introduced to legalise the evidence of the parties in all cases of fraud; but if that were done, there would still, in the present case, be a difficulty in obtaining relief, as the person against whom the proceedings were instituted would endeavour, by all the means in his power, to delay the final decision. Their lordships would have an opportunity of taking into their consideration all the particulars the case while the bill was in progress; but if they should reject the prayer of the petition, the lady and her family would be left in the most cruel state of suspense. There was no possible mode of extricating her, unless by a bill; and death might, by possibility, prevent that justice which their lordships would desire to see done. To what a deplorable state would this young lady be reduced, if she were allowed to remain the wife of a felon! Their lordships, in his opinion, were perfectly warranted, by the case of 1691, in allowing the bill to be brought in.
Lord Tenterdensupported the prayer of the petition. He said, that the facts stated in the petition must be assumed to be true, and that the young lady had been taken away by means of fraud and forgery. The learned lord then recapitulated all the particulars of the case, and said, that the principal offender and his accomplices had been convicted of a conspiracy, originating in the basest motives of lucre, and conducted throughout by fraud and force. He thought the House bound to afford the relief prayed. The friends of the unfortunate girl had, by prosecuting the defendants, done all in their power, and now came to the House for that relief which the

883
peculiar nature of the case demanded. He considered the precedent of 1691 sufficient. There were certainly circumstances in the present case which did not exist in that. In that instance, the husband had fled the country: but the fact of Campbell having so done did not form any material matter of consideration on the minds of those who passed that bill. If any other course were adopted, their lordships must recollect the great delay which must take place, and the anxiety and distress to which the parties must be subjected in the mean time. Public justice demanded that they should pass the bill. The punishment in this case had been too sparingly administered, considering the inflictions which the defendants had imposed on the unhappy young woman. He thought it was the duty of their lordships to take care to inform these persons, and not only them, but all others who possessed themselves of the persons of young women for the sake of base lucre, that such conduct would be visited with the severest penalties—to tell them, by what their lordships would now do, that they not only exposed themselves to the punishment which the courts of law might inflict, but that there was a power in the country, which would deprive them of all possibility of reaping advantage from their crimes.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.