Lords Sitting of 10 July 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of BSAUFORT, from Bristol, against Clauses in the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.—By the Earls of COVENTRY and WINCHILSEA, from several Places,—for Protection to the Established Church, and against the Claims of the Dissenters, and for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

THE MINISTRY.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that although the bench opposite was nearly empty, and although the noble Earl who was lately at the head of the Government was not in his place, still he saw some Ministers present, and the noble and learned Lord was on the Woolsack, and he therefore thought it right to ask a question which his public duty compelled him to put. Their Lordships were in this extraordinary predicament, that in this House the noble Earl told them yesterday that he had resigned, and a similar communication was made to the other House by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this House, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said, that with the exception of these two individuals the Government existed as before, as there were no other Members of it who had resigned. A contrary statement was made in the other House of Parliament, for the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there said, that himself with four others had retired from the Government, and that the dissolution of the Administration
2
had taken place. The question he wished to ask the noble and learned Lord was, if we had at this moment any Government at all, if any of these noble individuals still retained their seals, and whether the noble and learned Lord would tell him whether he (the Lord Chancellor) knew of his own knowledge that any individual had been charged to reconstruct the Administration? If there was not any Government existing, he should move, as he ought, the adjournment of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: I am charged, my Lords, by my noble friend who was lately, and who still is nominally at the head of the Government, to give any explanation, and to answer any question that might be put, to say that he shall not be able to attend in his place to-day, as indeed it is unnecessary for him to do, understanding as he did, that nothing whatever would come on; and that after the explanation of yesterday, if he had attended, he might have been spared any application to answer questions, as after stating that he was no longer a Minister of the Crown he was no longer liable to be called upon in that manner. In answering the first part of the question of the noble Marquess, I re-state what I stated yesterday, that I know of no resignations up to this moment, except those of my noble friend, lately the real, and still the nominal head of the Government, and of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of

3
the Exchequer. I understand it to have been said, by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the other House of Parliament, that three other persons—[The Duke of Buckingham and Lord Londonderry: Four.] Take them to be four other persons, approved of his conduct and motives, and concurred with him in the opinion he entertained of the propriety of his resigning the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not understand it to have been said, that any one of those Gentlemen had tendered his resignation; but then it has been stated that my noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, that the Government was virtually dissolved, or was virtually abandoned. I understand the expression to have been this—that by that time the noble Lord at the head of the Government would have stated here, in this House, that the Government was virtually dissolved. Your Lordships will hear witness with me, that that was an entire misapprehension, so that whoever took the trouble, and from whatever motive, be he whom he may, to communicate the statement made by my noble friend in this House to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other House, communicated a statement the reverse of the fact. My noble in friend cautiously, purposely, manifestly, abstained from making any such statement, and stated only, that he and the noble Lord, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had tendered their resignations. It is impossible that my noble friend could have said, that the Government was really or virtually dissolved, for then I could not have got up and stated what I did afterwards, and which, if the Government had been dissolved, would have been contrary to the fact, and would have been at once contradicted by my noble friend. It was an entire misapprehension; no such statement was made here, and none could have been made with correctness, and in accordance with the fact, any where. What is likely to be the consequence of this state of things in which accident has placed the Government, and the Parliament, and the country, is another question. I will not speculate on the consequence; but if any noble Lord says, that it is highly inexpedient that Parliament should go on without a responsible head of the Government, I beg leave to declare that I fully agree with him, and so does my noble friend. For that very
4
reason, my noble friend would not move the third reading of certain measures; but he stated that he thought the Poor-law Bill stood in a different situation; and, with a gallantry and disinterestedness which he had always shown, he said, "How just soever are the motives that have induced me to resign my office, yet I ought not to make that resignation the cause of stopping a Bill which I deem of so much importance to the country;" and my noble friend, therefore, gave notice, that he should bring it forward, and he will do so to-morrow. If the reconstruction of this Administration, or the formation of another, should be delayed so long that the exigences of the public business should absolutely require it to be at an end—if it should be delayed so long even as to interfere with the good conduct of the public business, we all know that Parliament would have a right to interfere. There is no man who would more readily than I acknowledge the right of Parliament—the right of both, or of either of the Houses of Parliament—to interfere on such an occasion. I never had a doubt about it—if I had, I should have that doubt removed by the presence of a noble Baron on the Bench near me, who, in another place, made a Motion under similar circumstances—a Motion which I recollect I seconded, on occasion of the delay that took place in forming an Administration after the lamented death of Lord Liverpool. But though I admit fully the right of either House of Parliament in this matter, I must say, that I do not think the state of the country to be so strongly excited and so feverish as to make a delay of twenty-four hours too long! His Majesty has been placed in a state of great difficulty; and whether considering the state of parties, which no man more bitterly deplores than I do, as tending to prevent the formation of an Administration equal to the exigences of the public service—I say, that whether considering the state of parties, or the state of Parliament and of the country, I do not begrudge twenty-four hours; no, nor a much longer period of time, for the performance of that most responsible—that most difficult—that all but hopeless task in this state of parties, since men will persist in regarding party and personal motives before public ones; ["No no!" from the Opposition.] I assure your Lordships that I do not refer to this side of the House, but I say it of all

5
public men more or less, and I speak it in the spirit of the most unfactious conciliation. I have now answered all the questions but one of the noble Marquess.
The Marquess of Londonderry: No, no! The question about any person being intrusted with the formation of a new Ministry has not been answered.
The Lord Chancellor: Yes; I remember, but that is just the question that I will not answer; and what is more, neither interruptions, nor sneers, nor a good-humoured joke—the force of which I can feel as much as any noble Lord present—shall compel me to answer a question which duty to my Sovereign ought to make me refuse to answer. I should betray my duty to my Sovereign, if I were to answer it. If I knew nothing, I could answer it—easily answer it; but it is because I do know, that I refuse to answer; and I trust that your Lordships will think that I am not guilty of any unbecoming taciturnity. I am not taciturn. I can defend myself when I am attacked, and I can defend my friends, when my friends are attacked; but I think that not to preserve silence, when anything but silence would mar the public service, defeat the end which we all wish to see speedily accomplished, and prevent his Majesty from gaining that assistance which he is entitled to from all public servants, would not betoken a proper regard for the public service.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that the House had heard a long and eloquent speech from the noble and learned Lord, instead of an answer to a question which every Peer had a right to put—namely, whether the noble and learned Lord knew of any one having received instructions to reconstruct the Administration. The amount of the speech was, that the noble and learned Lord knew, but would not tell.
The subject was dropped.