Lords Sitting of 25 February 1828

CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION—MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS.
On the motion that the House do adjourn,
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, he was sorry again to intrude upon their lordships' attention, but as there was no public business immediately about to come under the consideration of the House, he trusted he might be allowed to say a few words with respect to a contradiction, or a partial contradiction, which had been given, in another place, to what he had stated to their lordships on a former occasion. He had then stated, that a declaration had been made by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), whom he conceived to be a particular friend of his lamented relation; and he had asked the noble earl opposite (Dudley), whether he had not heard that declaration, and whether he did not concur in it, and know to whom it referred. The right hon. gentleman had, however, stated at Liverpool, that, as to personal enemies of Mr. Canning, he knew of none. In comparing that statement with the declaration which he had made to their lordships, he had no wish to make it a matter of charge against the right hon. gentleman he alluded to, that he had departed from that declaration: he only asked for an explanation of the obvious contrast which those two statements presented; and he believed he had not been clearly understood by the noble earl opposite, who did not reply to his question, otherwise than by eloquently descanting upon the virtues of forgiveness, and alluding to the conduct of his lamented father-in-law, under circumstances which he could never allow to be similar, in any point, to those in which the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonies and the noble earl were intermixed. As, however, he had put his questions only a short time previous to the adjournment of the House, when several noble lords were leaving their places, and when the noise which was made rendered the conversation

637
inaudible, at the desire of the noble earl he I re-put those questions; and if he understood rightly, the noble earl admitted that he had heard some such declaration; but though the noble earl might not approve of the feelings which had caused that declaration, and might not give it the sanction of his name, yet he did not think it was to be considered without limitation as to time. Though there was a very great difference between the declaration which he (lord Clanricarde) had stated to their lordships to have been made, and that which had been personally admitted by the noble earl, and the declaration which was avowed to have been made in another place, yet he must contend, though that avowal and the declaration which had been admitted was a sufficient proof of the inconsistency of the statement made at Liverpool, that at least the right hon. gentleman did know, in December last, of some personal enemies to Mr. Canning, though by the lapse of time which ensued between that month and January, he had forgotten the existence of any of them. As to the truth of what he had stated to their lordships, it rested on unquestionable authority. On his return from the continent, the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonies made more than one visit to the widow of his lamented relative. He could not state the exact day that, on going to the house of that lady, he met the hon. gentleman just at the moment he had left. He entered, and was immediately informed by his noble relative, and by another person, to whom the subject was no less interesting; that the right hon. gentleman had to each of them made a declaration, in the terms which he had stated to their lordships. What the right hon. gentleman had said at Liverpool he did not think it important to repeat in their lordships' house. But when he saw the contradiction, at first the most direct and flat, but afterwards much qualified, which had been given to that declaration, when he saw that contradiction, qualified as it was, he must own that he was truly astonished. He clearly held in his memory every minute particular, attendant on the circumstances, under which he, for the first time, learned that such a denial had been made; and he doubted whether his ears or his memory had not proved treacherous to him; and he determined, that if on investigation it should prove to be the case that such denial had been
638
made, he would seize the first opportunity of avowing to their lordships his feelings on the subject. He therefore referred to the individuals on whom he placed the greatest reliance, before he ventured to address their lordships, and he found their recollection so perfect and undeviating in every particular, that there did not exist on his mind the shadow of a doubt with respect to what the individual of whom he was speaking had stated. He now held in his hand, a letter, written by the noble lady (lady Canning) on Friday last, to whom he had been obliged to allude, in which she distinctly asserted, that that individual had made a declaration such as he had reported to their lordships. He should not think it necessary to read the letter, unless he was called upon so to do; in which case, he had the authority of that noble lady to make such use of it as he thought proper. It had been stated, that that declaration could not be made public without a scandalous violation of confidence. When the communication had been made to him, he never considered it as confidential: it was never desired that it should be so considered: there was nothing in its nature which could give it that character. The declaration had been communicated to others of the same opinion with himself, and several weeks ago it had appeared—not exactly in the same words as he had described it—in a daily journal of the widest circulation, to which, it was clear, that it had not been communicated by his (lord Clanricarde's) friends, from the circumstance that there also appeared in the same paper the answer which had been given to the declaration when it had been first uttered; which answer was not known to his friends, until it had appeared in the public prints. It had been made a matter of accusation against him, that he had brought forward this question in a place where the right hon. gentleman to whom it related could not answer. But he humbly asked their lordships, where was he to remark upon the conduct of a minister, and upon a speech which he had made in a place to which it was irregular in him to allude, but which had been uttered in the face of the country, and upon an occasion of the deepest importance,—where was he to observe upon these matters if not in their lordships' house? It had been a matter of sincere and painful regret to him, that in discussing these subjects, he had been unavoidably placed

639
in apparent hostility to the right hon. gentleman, upon whose conduct he had made some remarks; but he felt it his duty not to allow the statements or representations made at Liverpool to pass without contradiction. Having thus far experienced the indulgence of the House in speaking of matters of a personal nature, he would not trespass further on their lordships' attention than by stating, that though the interval and lapse of time comprised in the short space of four months had not obliterated in his mind, as it had in that of others, the remembrance of his lamented relation, yet, so far from allowing his feelings to place him in direct opposition to the government, he sincerely hoped that the measures which might be brought forward would be such as he could conscientiously and cordially support. But, when he reflected on the tone of disrespect which had been taken by some of the members of the present government, and the obloquy which had been cast by others on the name of that individual, to the support of whose principles he looked for the welfare of the country, he could not give the present ad ministration a cordial support.
Earl Dudleyconfessed himself under great difficulty in entering at all into the consideration of the question—if any question had been put at all—which the noble lord, for the second time, had thought fit to bring before their lordships, giving no other notice to any individual whom the question might concern, than such as might be collected from clubs and newspapers. It appeared to him, that the subject which had been brought under their lordships' attention was not of a nature to be discussed in parliament. Parliament ought to judge of public men on public grounds and public declarations; but it was not the province of parliament to inquire whether particular individuals, who had been the friends of Mr. Canning, had conducted themselves with proper delicacy, in accepting places or continuing in office with those persons, between whom and that individual any unfriendly feeling had grown up. The noble lord had stated that he had put a question on a former evening, relative to a declaration which had been made by his right hon. friend, a member of the other House of Parliament, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The noble lord did ask a question, as to that declaration, and as to his joining in office with those persons who had express-
640
ed themselves in so hostile a manner towards Mr. Canning. He had then told the noble lord all he knew on the subject of that declaration. He had told him, that, at the time of the formation of the new government, after the death of Mr. Canning, he perfectly understood that a declaration had been made by Mr. Huskisson, that, with the feelings he entertained at that time, he was not disposed to act with those who had opposed themselves to Mr. Canning. That was all he knew of the matter. He had no reason to think that the declaration was of such a nature as to be considered as affecting the conduct of the right hon. gentleman at a future period, or under other circumstances. He would not dilate on the moral reasons which should induce men not to cherish feelings of eternal animosity; but, in a political view, he thought that in a country like this, it would be impossible for a government to go on, if expressions used in the warmth of political animosity and party struggle were to be considered as binding upon men for ever. The history of this country, and of every other free country, was a history of political animosities and quarrels, and also of political reconciliations; and that, too, when the quarrel had been of much longer duration than that which had taken place at a late period. What was the nature of that quarrel? It was this—that after Mr. Canning had acted, for several years, with those persons who had retired from office, when he was called upon to form a new administration, circumstances arose, which alienated from him persons with whom he had formerly acted, and with whom he proposed to act again; and that unfortunate difference continued to the end of his life. It continued only for a few months, after years of friendship, union, and co-operation. He thought, however, that this question was one which could not be discussed with any public advantage, for he could not think that discussion to be a proper one for their lordships, which referred to private papers and to reports, necessarily very uncertain, of conversations which had taken place between individuals, and which were, after all, points with which the public, strictly speaking, had nothing at all to do. Society was the tribunal before which matters like these ought to be judged; they were related by no means to topics which ought to be introduced to the notice of Parliament.
The Marquisof Clanricardeobserved, that it was necessary for him to show that the statement which he had formerly made upon this subject was accurate. This was all he intended to do. His proposition was a very fair one. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson) made a certain declaration respecting the enemies of Mr. Canning; and at Liverpool he had said, that "of personal enemies to Mr. Canning he knew of none." Now, was this correct? It was not, as the noble lord appeared to think, a declaration made only to persons with whom he was connected; nor was it because the declaration had been made there that he adverted to it. The right hon. gentleman had been reported, in the public papers, to have used certain expressions at Liverpool. Now, if he did use those expressions at Liverpool, he used in parliament—he was going to say, different ones, but he would not say "different," because his question had not yet been answered—to whom did the right hon. gentleman make the declaration to which he referred? He must again observe, that his veracity had been impeached; that an imputation had been cast upon him; and it was necessary for him to show that there was no ground for it.
Lord Seafordrose and said:—My lords; it is impossible for me, without feelings of the most painful nature, to enter into the discussion of a subject, which involves a question of the sacred performance of the duty of friendship, to a friend who is now no more; a friend, whose friendship was the pride and delight of my life, from our earliest youth, till the disastrous moment when he was snatched away—though in the fulness of fame and honour, yet most prematurely for the happiness of his friends, and the good of his country. Those feelings are so painful as only to be overcome by a paramount sense of duty; and they have been rendered still more distressing, by the course pursued by my noble friend (lord Clanricarde). The near connection in which he stood to Mr. Canning, and by which he is still united to those who were most dear to him, renders it most painful to me to express a difference of opinion from him upon points in which we have both so deep an interest, and the reluctance which I felt to do any thing which might have the appearance of unnecessarily entering into a conflict with him sealed my lips on a former occasion, and prevented my taking a part in that de-
642
bate; nor will I now enter upon the several points which my noble friend has brought forward, but shall content myself with making that statement which I conceive to be due to my noble friend opposite (lord Dudley) and those other friends of Mr. Canning, who form a part of the present administration.
Having, my lords, had an opportunity of witnessing the habits of friendship and confidence which subsisted between my noble friend opposite, and Mr. Canning, and knowing the admiration, I may say, the veneration, which my noble friend entertained for Mr. Canning's transcendent talents, and for those, if possible, still more endearing and fascinating qualities which he possessed; having been acquainted also with the circumstances under which my noble friend accepted the seals of office which he now holds—circumstances affording no ordinary proof of friendship on his part, and of confidence on the part of Mr. Canning—I cannot believe it possible that my noble friend was influenced, in the course which he took, by any other feelings than those of a sincere and genuine sense of what he owed to the memory of his friend. It is impossible, also, for me, my lords, to entertain any other opinion with respect to the feelings which influenced the course taken by my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies.
Having, my lords, had an opportunity of estimating Mr. Huskisson's attachment to Mr. Canning, during a period of not less than twenty years of constant political concert and uninterrupted habits of private friendship, it is impossible for me to doubt the feelings under which Mr. Huskisson has acted in accepting office; and when I see my noble friend opposite, and that right hon. gentleman, made the object of hostile attacks—not only those of fair parliamentary hostility, but of other sorts more difficult to be dealt with—I feel that I should not be acting a manly and honourable part towards them, if I was to shrink from declaring my opinion, and claiming my share in whatever obloquy their conduct has excited.
I am unwilling to dwell upon those attacks to which I have adverted; but there is one topic which my duty to Mr. Huskisson compels me to notice. I am well aware how ill suited such topics are, to the gravity of your lordships' discussions, but the subject having been brought before your lordships by my noble friend (lord

643
Clanricarde) and having been made the subject of debate in another place, I must take the liberty of troubling your lordships with one or two observations upon this point, and I trust that my motives for doing so will be my excuse with your lordships. I mean, my lords, the attacks made on Mr. Huskisson, in consequence of a declaration understood to have been made by him in the highest quarter. Mr. Huskisson has publicly avowed that declaration in parliament; but an attempt was made to discredit the accuracy of that avowal, and to fix upon him other expressions upon the authority of other persons.
To the difference between the two versions of that declaration I attach no importance; but to the inference attempted to be drawn from their difference to his prejudice; which is no less than this, that he now professes to have used expressions which he did not employ upon the occasion, and that he disavows those which he did employ. To this, I do attach importance; and as my name has been brought forward in support of this attempt, I feel it to be due to Mr. Huskisson to declare, that on no occasion when I may have mentioned that declaration, did I mention it in a manner which could justify the attempt to fix upon Mr. Huskisson any precise form of expression, upon my authority. I never professed to give the precise words which he had used on that occasion; I attended only to the substance; and I cannot now pretend to rely upon the accuracy of my recollection, as to the precise words which I may myself have used, certainly, not in contradiction to the recollection of any friend to whom I may have made the communication; but if I did use those words that have been attributed to me, I am bound to state, that I have had a subsequent opportunity of knowing that they could not have been the words which were used by Mr. Huskisson, and I take no blame to myself for this inaccuracy in my recollection, in consideration of the manner in which I originally received the information. In a conversation at Paris with lord Granville, on the subject of this declaration, lord Granville showed me a letter written to him by Mr. Huskisson, on the day after the declaration had been made, consequently, while the impression was fresh upon his mind. In that letter he relates confidentially to lord Granville what had passed, and he does so in the same words which
644
he has lately avowed in another place. Those persons know me very ill, if there are any who imagine, that by what I now state, I wish to soften down or qualify the sentiment, which dictated that declaration. It would be disingenuous in me if I were not to avow, and I trust the noble duke will do justice to the motives which dictate the avowal, that some of the transactions which took place on the formation of Mr. Canning's administration, and subsequently to that period, did excite feelings in my mind, and have left an impression, which would have rendered it very difficult (I do not know how difficult) for me to have formed a political connection with those of Mr. Canning's colleagues, who separated themselves from him on that occasion. But, my lords, I speak as a private individual, and with feelings which apply peculiarly, perhaps, to my particular situation. My noble friend and Mr. Huskisson are public men; they had public duties to perform, public duties to their country and to their friend; and when they received the overture from the noble duke, they were bound to consider well, what were the obligations which those duties imposed upon them, and I cannot but approve of their having acted in conformity to their conscientious sense of those duties. If, my lords, the explanation received by my noble friend, were as full and satisfactory as he has stated them to have been, and as I doubt not, and if the assurances received by my right hon. friend, were such as to satisfy his mind, that in forming a part of the noble duke's administration, he should not be called upon to abandon the principles which he had always espoused, and which had been acted upon by Mr. Canning—then, I say, that I think it was their duty not to withhold their services from their country. I think also, that their private duty dictated the same course. The noble duke's offer to them of retaining the important offices which they then held—departments of no slight importance, embracing no less than the administration of the foreign, colonial, and commercial, policy, and the local government of Ireland—without requiring of them any abandonment of their principles;—this offer of the noble duke I cannot but consider a tribute of respect so honourable to the memory of Mr. Canning, that his friends would not have been justified in rejecting it on grounds merely personal. My lords, if I

645
hold thus high—as I do most high—the homage thus paid to the memory of Mr. Canning, I mean nothing disparaging to the noble duke, I see nothing in the proposition of the noble duke, or in the explanations with which it was accompanied on his part, or on that of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) with whom Mr. Huskisson also communicated on this occasion, which the strictest sense of honour might not have dictated. They had both acted as colleagues with Mr. Canning, not only in the ad ministration of lord Liverpool, but in that of the duke of Portland, at the commencement of their own political career, when my late right hon. friend filled the office of Foreign Secretary; they were both of them approving and concurring parties to every measure, by which his administration of the foreign departments has been distinguished under the government of lord Liverpool.
My lords, as the measures of Mr. Canning's foreign policy have been the subject of much discussion and criticism, I trust I shall be excused if I cannot persuade myself to pass over those criticisms altogether without notice. Some noble lords have objected to the principles of Mr. Canning's foreign policy; others have admitted the soundness of his principles, but have refused to him any merit on that score, and have found fault with the execution; others have disapproved both his principles, and their execution; others, again, have declared that they did not know what were his principles of foreign policy. To these various, and some of them contradictory, criticisms, I will not make any detailed reply; nor will I pretend to submit to your lordships an abstract exposition of Mr. Canning's principles, I will content myself with a general and short, but as I conceive a conclusive, answer, by a reference to these practical results—to the situation, in which Mr. Canning left this country, when he was snatched away from the direction of her councils. He left her at the head of the councils of Europe; in that proud station which her power and importance among the nations of the world justly entitled her to assume; the luminary by which every cabinet directed their course, if not the guide they were content to follow! The eyes of all the nations of the new, and the old world, fixed upon her, with gratitude by many, with hope by others, with respect by all. For the fidelity of this picture, I
646
appeal to the testimony of every Englishman who has travelled in foreign countries—who has witnessed the universal respect entertained by the liberal and enlightened of all countries, for the principles and policy of the government of this country.
I appeal to the stronger but melancholy testimony of the sensation of dismay and consternation, which was felt at his death, which was mourned scarcely less as a public than as a national calamity. It is no disparagement to the noble duke or to the right hon. gentleman to whom 1 have referred (Mr. Peel), to be said to have been approving and concurring parties to policy of which such were the fruits. The right hon. gentleman at the head of the home office has, indeed, declared, on more than one occasion, and he has lately repeated the declaration, in a manner which reflected the highest credit on his candour, that, with the exception of the Catholic question, there was not any important measure on which he did not concur with Mr. Canning; that there was no one with whom he could have acted more satisfactorily as a colleague, no one under whom he would have been better content to serve as his leader in too House of Commons; or even at the head of the administration, if it had not been for the particular situation in which they each stood with respect to the Catholic question, and the peculiar relation of the department which he held with the person at the head of the government. With respect to any differences of opinion, such as have been rumoured to have existed, on some measures of Mr. Canning's foreign administration, between him and the noble duke, it is not within the competency of any person not in his majesty's councils to express any opinion, or to have any knowledge of such differences, or of any discussions which may have taken place on any such measures, previous to the decision by the cabinet; but it is not too much to assume, that they could not have been such as to make any difference on fundamental principles, or any incompatibility of acting together as colleagues. That no such incompatibility was felt by Mr. Canning was proved, at the time when he received the king's commands to submit to his majesty the plan of an administration, by his offer to the noble duke, and the rest of his colleagues, to retain the situations which they then held, accompanied with the assurance, that the government should continue to be

647
conducted on the principles of that of lord Liverpool, and, as far as his wish went, that it should be composed of the same individuals. I see, then, no great inconsistency, under similar circumstances, in a similar offer being made by the noble duke to Mr. Canning's friends, or being accepted by them; no objection at least arising out of any incompatibility in their political principles, or any important differences of opinion, or any great measures of government. As to any objections arising from private feelings, I have already stated why I think they might and ought to be subordinate to a sense of public duty. But, notwithstanding the experience of the noble duke and Mr. Canning having acted together as colleagues, and the degree of concurrence of their principles which is thence to be inferred, and notwithstanding the explanations which have taken place as to any differences of opinion which might have arisen since the noble duke and Mr. Canning had ceased to act together as colleagues, there are some noble lords who are of opinion, that some stipulations, or pledges, or guarantees, ought to have been demanded by my noble and right hon. friends, the Secretaries for the Foreign Affairs and for the Colonies. I must confess that I entirely differ from that opinion. For them to have required any such guarantee would, in my opinion, have been worse than unnecessary; and I heard without surprise, and with entire concurrence, the noble duke's assertion, that it was impossible for Mr. Huskisson to have used the words attributed to him in the papers; indeed, I knew that he had not used them; for I had seen him on the day after his return from Liverpool, when I asked him whether the reports of his speech were in that respect correct: he said that he had seen no report of his speech but that in the Liverpool Courier. I then referred to a London paper, when he declared that report to be incorrect, and explained to me the sense in which he had used the words, exactly as he explained them afterwards in his place. In that sense I conceive them to have been correct. For I cannot suspect the noble duke of making an offer to men of honour to retain their offices, meaning afterwards to call upon them to abandon the principles on which they had previously administered them, even if no explanation had taken place; after the explanations which took place, I consider it to be impossible,
648
and I will not argue an impossible case. But to those who can entertain any such distrust I will shortly answer, that should such a case arise, my noble friend and his colleagues would always have the remedy in their own hands; namely, the power of retiring from office; nor can I entertain a doubt of their having recourse to that remedy without a moment's hesitation, rather than submit to any compromise of their principles, any more than I can suspect the noble duke of intending to drive them to that necessity.
Upon these grounds, my lords, I am disposed confidently to expect that the noble duke's administration will be conducted upon principles in conformity to those which I have always supported, during the long period that my political course was united with that of Mr. Canning; nor, until I see some practical sign of a disposition to depart from those principles, will I withdraw my confidence, or anticipate the probability of its being disappointed.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he did not rise with the intention of entering at any length into this discussion, which, in his opinion, was entirely uncalled-for, and might as well have been left alone; or of making any profession of principles, because he thought that unnecessary, and because he hoped, after what had fallen from the noble lord, that he would support the principles on which he (the duke) should act. But he rose to protest against any such imputations being cast upon him, as that he had entertained any personal hostility to Mr. Canning. On a former occasion, he had stated distinctly to their lordships, why he did not think proper to remain in the government of which Mr. Canning was the head. The communications that had passed between him and Mr. Canning had, unfortunately, he must be allowed to say, been made public; and he defied any man to point out any thing like personal feeling in those communications. It was true, that, when he found it necessary to withdraw from the government, he had also thought it his duty to lay down the military office which he held; but he begged leave to call their lordships' recollection to the explanation which he had given at that time, and to his subsequent conduct. After he had left the government, he had always met Mr. Canning in the way in which he had been accustomed to meet

649
him, and had not departed from those habits of friendship which had marked their previous intercourse. But he would go further. He had no hostility towards Mr. Canning's government. He had, it was true, proposed that a clause should be added to the corn-bill; but had he not, at the same time, begged of the government to adopt that clause, or something like it, and not to abandon the bill? He must repeat, that to the day of his death, he had felt no personal hostility towards Mr. Canning; and that Mr. Canning was equally free from the imputation of having entertained any political hostility towards him.
Lord Melrosssaid, he agreed in every syllable that had fallen from lord Seaford, and could not let that opportunity pass without declaring himself satisfied with the conduct of Mr. Canning's friends.
Their lordships then adjourned.