Sitting of 28 February 1851

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Bedford County, Richard Thomas Gilpin, Esq.; for Glamorgan County, Sir George Tyler.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Smithfield Enlargement.
3a Ecclesiastical Residences (Ireland).

THE MINISTERIAL CRISIS— EXPLANATIONS.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill read.
LORD J. RUSSELL: Sir, in moving the postponement of the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill, I will take the opportunity of stating to the House what has occurred since I asked the House on Monday last to consent to an adjournment to this day. Before doing so, however, I think it necessary to notice a contradiction which I received to a statement I made on Monday. I stated that Lord Stanley, having been sent for by the Queen, had stated to Her Majesty that he was not then prepared to form a Government, and that thereupon I was required to repair to Buckingham Palace. I received from the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire a contradiction to that statement in terms very peremptory, and in a manner not very courteous. I feel it due to my own honour to state, in the first place, that nothing was further from my intention than to mis-
1030
represent the conduct of Lord Stanley. For Lord Stanley I have the greatest respect. I have fought Parliamentary battles side by side with him; I have fought face to face against him; and in every situation I have ever had occasion to admire his spirit, his courage, and his honour. Therefore I should be sorry indeed if anything which fell from me did not convey a correct representation of what he had stated on the subject. But the House will recollect that it was my duty not to go into details—not to allude to particular circumstances—not, above all, to narrate what I had heard of conversations, but to present what appeared to me to be the general result of what had passed. It was quite necessary I should state a reason why, after having taken leave of Her Majesty, I was required to repair again to the Palace. That this was necessary, I say, is obvious from the various statements that were circulated—some previously to the contradiction given by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and some subsequently—statements which represented that Lord Stanley was anxious to form a Government, and represented me as having endeavoured to force my way uninvited to the presence of the Sovereign, while Lord Stanley was engaged in negotiations for that purpose. Now, what occurred was this: His Royal Highness Prince Albert wrote me a letter on the afternoon of Saturday, which, with Her Majesty's and His Royal Highness's permission, I will read to the House. I will read the whole that is contained in the note:—
"Lord Stanley has, after a conference of more than an hour, declined undertaking the formation of a Government at present, until it should be clear that no other Government could be formed. The Queen has sent for Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham, and wishes to see you immediately."
I could do no other on that representation, than conclude that Lord Stanley had declined, for the present, to form a Government, until he had seen that no other Government could be formed, and could not have imagined that two days after it would be a misrepresentation of Lord Stanley to say that he had not then been prepared to form a Government; for it will be recollected that I used the words "not then prepared." Every one who has ever been admitted to the presence of Her Majesty is aware of the accuracy of her memory, and of the precise view She takes of all that comes under her observation. But although

1031
I received from the Queen, in some detail, what had passed with Lord Stanley, I do not rest on any such statement in what I now say; but on a written account of the interview between Her Majesty and Lord Stanley, which Lord Stanley sent to the Queen in the course of the same evening, and from which Lord Stanley has permitted me to read to the House extracts containing all that bears on the point in question. Let me observe that if I go into these particulars, it is in consequence of the contradiction of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. I was satisfied to leave the case with the few words which I stated on Monday, without going beyond that general representation. Lord Stanley thus reports to the Queen what he had stated in her presence:—
"After stating to Your Majesty the position of the three main parties into which the House of Commons is divided, Lord Stanley observed, that the policy of the present Administration had met with the general approval and support of the most distinguished men of the party which adhered to the late Sir Robert Peel, and that they had never yet met with a defeat from Lord Stanley's political friends; that a very important Member of that party, Sir James Graham, had publicly declared his opinion of the necessity of 'closing their ranks' to resist the presumed policy of Lord Stanley's friends; and as Your Majesty had been pleased to inform him that no communication had been made to any one previous to that with which Your Majesty honoured him, he ventured to suggest that, in the first instance, Your Majesty should ascertain whether it were not possible to strengthen the present Government, or partially to reconstruct it by a combination with those who, not now holding office, concurred in the opinions of those who do, and professed their opinion of the necessity of union; that, failing such a combination, a portion of that third party might be willing to combine with Lord Stanley, whose difficulties in such a case would be greatly diminished; that if it should appear that both of these arrangements were impracticable, and if personal considerations stood in the way of the formation of a Government of those whose opinions appeared to prevail in the House of Commons, Lord Stanley, not undertaking the extreme difficulties which he would have to encounter, would, if honoured with Your Majesty's confidence, prefer any responsibility, and even the chance of failure and loss of reputation, to that of leaving Your Majesty and the country without a Government; and he added, that he believed an Administration formed under such circumstances would be more likely to meet with support, even from moderate opponents of their views, than one which should be hastily formed without giving time to show the impracticability of a different arrangement."
I ask the House whether these passages do not bear out my statement that Lord Stanley was not then prepared to form a Government? At the close of his letter Lord Stanley says:—
1032
"He feels highly honoured by being allowed to submit to Your Majesty unreservedly his whole views, and while he would be sorry that this paper should fall into any other hands than those of Your Majesty, he has that entire confidence in Lord John Russell's honour, that he is sure no ungenerous use will be made of any portion of it which Your Majesty may see fit to communicate to him."
I have the gratification of being able to state, that after I made my statement in this House, Lord Stanley, while he informs me that he does not agree in that statement, does not wish to qualify in the least degree the last portion of his letter. It is satisfactory to me to be able to make this statement to the House, and to say that the extracts I have read to the House have been read with the entire consent of Lord Stanley; indeed, Lord Stanley wished them to be read in any statement which I might make. Having thus explained what I said on a former day, I have now to state that, having been desired by Her Majesty to attempt the reconstruction of the Administration, Her Majesty was pleased, as Prince Albert states in his note, to desire the Earl of Aberdeen and Sir James Graham to attend at Buckingham Palace. By Her Majesty's desire I met the Earl of Aberdeen and Sir James Graham at the Palace, and afterwards had communications with them on the subject of the formation of a Government. After the extracts which I have read from Lord Stanley's letter, I feel it right to say that no persona] considerations stood in the way of the formation of a Government representing the opinions which seem to prevail in this House. If the Earl of Aberdeen and Sir James Graham did not concur in the formation of a Government, it was not because personal considerations stood in the way. With respect to several points of public importance on which we communicated, although there was not any particular agreement, yet there was not such diversity of views as might not, by further communication, have been reconciled; but there was one point on which it was felt impossible, either for the Earl of Aberdeen and Sir James Graham, or myself, to give way. That subject was the Bill I introduced relative to the assumption of ecclesiastical titles. I stated—and I will presently explain what I meant in so stating—that I was willing to agree to considerable alteration and modification of that Bill; but that I thought it necessary to persevere with the measure. The Earl of Aberdeen and Sir James Graham, however, declared

1033
that in their opinion any legislation on the subject was unnecessary. This, therefore, was a point on which we differed so widely, that in our opinion it was impossible to form a Government by our junction. As soon as I found that the objections of the Earl of Aberdeen and Sir James Graham to legislation on this subject were insuperable, I again repaired to Buckingham Palace, and humbly laid before Her Majesty the commission with which I had been intrusted. It has been erroneously stated in the public papers that in the course of the same evening I met the Earl of Aberdeen and Sir James Graham at the Palace. After laying down the commission I had received, I did not again meet them at the Palace, and we made no further attempt to form an Administration. But from the communications which had previously taken place, I have at least derived this satisfaction—that I have renewed with the right hon. Member for Ripon those ties of friendship by which we were formerly connected, and which, until during the struggles and difficult circumstances that occurred on the dissolution of Earl Grey's Government, and led to the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman, it was my pleasure and my pride to enjoy. It is therefore a pleasure and a comfort to me to renew the relations of friendship in which we formerly stood towards each other. I will not proceed to give any narrative of what occurred subsequently to my resignation of the commission with which I was intrusted by Her Majesty. The right hon. Baronet himself can state what occurred with respect to anything of that kind. The result was, as the House well knows, that Lord Stanley was again sent for by the Queen; and yesterday evening I was informed that Lord Stanley had resigned his commission into the hands of Her Majesty. Of course, with respect to the reasons of his so doing I am entirely ignorant, and will not pretend to conjecture; but this morning, I was informed that Her Majesty had been pleased, in these difficult circumstances—so many and such various attempts to form a Government having failed—to command the attendance of an old and faithful servant of the Crown—one whose wisdom in civil affairs is hardly less than the glory which he has derived from his militury achievements—I mean the Duke of Wellington. Her Majesty—I think most wisely—means to take counsel from that eminent man, and to pause for a while before She again commences the task of forming an Adminis-
1034
tration. I therefore end this narrative, as far as I am concerned, by desiring the House also to pause until some further step be taken. I cannot, however, well omit this opportunity of making some remarks, if the House will allow me, on the most important of the subjects which have been brought into discussion within the last few days. Let me say, in the first place, that the statement which I made on a former day does not seem to have been understood by all who were present on the occasion; for I was informed by a right hon. Gentleman, that I was understood to say that those Members of this House who voted in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey had thereby given a vote of want of confidence in the Government. Now, what I said was directly the reverse of that. I said that, no doubt, the Members who voted for that Motion gave a vote upon the merits of the question before them; but that, nevertheless, the effect of the vote was the weakening of the Government; and I will say now, that, had it not been for the event which immediately preceded that vote—I mean the division on the Motion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and divisions which I have every reason to expect on other subjects—I should not have thought the division on the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey alone a sufficient cause for the resignation of the Ministry. It was, however, impossible to avoid seeing that the Ministry must sustain a harassing conflict, terminating, it might be, in defeat; and I thought it better to resign in the first instance than to remain at the risk of the loss not only of power, but of character, to the Government. There is one charge which I could hardly have expected to be brought against me—I allude to the charge that, foreseeing the difficulties of the present circumstances of the country, I shrank from the responsibility of conducting public affairs. Such motives might, perhaps, have been imputed to me if, when Ireland was afflicted with a dreadful and almost unprecedented famine—when 3,000,000 of her people were fed by public charity, and when it was doubtful whether, in those circumstances, life and social order could be preserved, I had shrunk from the difficulty of the case. It is possible such motives might have been attributed to me if, at a later period, when the whole commerce of England was in a state of disturbance and confusion—when we heard

1035
every day of failing banks and broken merchants—when the principal bankers of London came to me and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask us to suspend the law, and to seek an Act of Indemnity for its suspension—I had shrunk then from the difficulties of my position. Such motives might have been imputed to me if, at a later period, when the whole of Europe was shaken by revolution—when there was every prospect that the treaties which bound Europe together would be broken up—when the example of revolution tempted to the violation of public order in this country, and when the Irish clubs were organised and prepared to spread rebellion over the land—under such circumstances, Sir, I might, perhaps, have shrunk from the difficulty of the crisis. But I do say that, not having shrunk under those circumstances and under those difficulties—that, having met those circumstances, and having passed over and overcome those difficulties, it was not likely that, in the present circumstances of the country, when commerce was flourishing, when the people were prosperous, when the only difficulty with the Exchequer was, that it was flourishing more than was convenient for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—when, in fact, the country has been placed in a state of prosperity and of peace equal to any other time—I say, it would have been impossible that I could have shrunk from my duty under the present circumstances. But I wish to state some opinions with respect to three questions which have occupied the public mind. One of these, and the most prominent one, is the question of free trade and free imports of corn. Now, I claim no credit whatever for establishing the present law upon that subject. The system which the Government of Lord Melbourne proposed was a system of a different kind, viz., a system of moderate duties on corn, and of differential duties on sugar and timber. That System was, rejected by the House of Commons find the country. In 1845 the circumstances of the country had assumed a very different shape. On the 1st of November that year, Sir Robert Peel proposed to his Cabinet that, at no distant period, the corn laws should be repealed. In that same month, without any communication with any one, I published my opinion that the time was come when the corn laws could no longer be maintained, and that the only safe course was, to pro-
1036
ceed to their repeal. Sir Robert Peel gave the honour of that change of public opinion, and of the final step in our legislation upon that subject, to the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire; and undoubtedly the benefits which the country has derived from that change, although due in great part to Sir Robert Peel, are likewise due in a great part to the hon. Member for the West Riding. I claim—I cannot say no share—but I claim the smallest share in the change of the commercial policy of the country; but that change having been effected in 1846, and having supported that change to the best of my ability, I believe that its effects have been most beneficial to this kingdom. I believe that the great mass of the people of this country are enjoying benefits from that change which they will not consent to see endangered. When the reins of power fell into our hands, it was our endeavour to proceed with that policy; and on two very important questions—the duties on foreign sugar and the navigation laws—questions of the greatest interest to the well-being of the country, we were successful in carrying changes into effect in conformity with the, commercial policy of 1846. I reckon that we were fortunate in being able to carry those changes into effect with the willing concurrence of the two Houses of Parliament. I have never thought that it was any matter of reproach, but the reverse, that Members of the other House of Parliament were willing to concur in the plan which had been proposed by the Administration of which I was the head; for it appears to me that while we are endeavouring to carry into effect great changes, we should endeavour, as far as possible, to carry them into effect without disturbing the institutions of the country. I will now proceed to the next subject, and that is, the Bill on the Assumption of Ecclesiastical Titles. I still concur in the opinion which I expressed on the introduction of that Bill. It is still my opinion that the assumption of those titles was an assumption of power on the part of a foreign Prince, and of those commissioned by him, which it was impossible for the Parliament of England to overlook; but I will say this, that I thought, and still think, that the main object to be attained was the vindication of our national independence upon that subject, and the assertion of the supremacy of the Crown and the people of England as against any foreign Power whatever. But with respect

1037
to the Bill which we have introduced—although great pains were taken in framing it—we have been told by persons who are competent authorities, that, looking to the proceedings in courts of law in Ireland—that, looking to what has been the practice both before and since 1829, this Bill would, in its second and third clauses, interfere, perhaps, with the ordination, certainly with the collation, of priests, and with bequests which have been allowed by various decisions of courts of law. I will say at once that it was not our intention so to interfere; and that, so far as regards anything which belongs to the regular order of the Roman Catholic Church, so as to permit the Roman Catholics to have their worship and their ecclesiastical functions undisturbed—so far we were anxious to maintain the religious liberty which has prevailed in this country; and therefore, if this Bill were proceeded with, I should be ready to make all such alterations in it as might prevent any interference of the kind which I have now stated. I own that when I see a man of such moderation and so justly respected as Archbishop Murray, objecting to the provisions of the Bill, I cannot refuse to examine and go over its provisions, with the view of seeing whether the objections thus stated are really well founded. My persuasion was, and I was confirmed in that persuasion by very high authorities, that on those points the Bill did not interfere, as it is now alleged it does. Therefore, if the Bill is proceeded with, we shall be ready to carry into effect the intentions we originally entertained—neither departing from, nor going beyond the intentions which I stated to the House upon its first introduction. There is another question, of very great importance, upon which on the occasion on the debate on the 20th inst., I made some statement to the House—I mean that very important subject, the extension of the suffrage. Now, it is fit I should state to the House—and I do so with the full consent of my Colleagues—that the extension of the suffrage was the subject of many deliberations in the course of the autumn, and previous to the meeting of Parliament. I had prepared an outline of a measure which I thought might have been proposed to Parliament on the subject; but a preliminary question naturally occurred, whether or not it was for the welfare of the country that any Bill should be introduced upon the subject in the course of the present Session; and, looking to the
1038
probable duration of the present Parliament—looking to the circumstances of the country at the present time—after various discussions, we all concurred in the opinion that it would not be advisable to introduce a Bill in the course of the present Session upon this subject. I came to the conclusion—having previously, I must say, held a different opinion—but I came to the conclusion, with all my Colleagues I believe, that it would be far better for the interests of the country not to introduce a Bill of this kind in the present Session. But at the same time I stated that I should, if my Ministry continued, lay before the Cabinet in the recess a measure which I should still further mature and prepare for the purpose of extending the right of voting for Members of Parliament. It is obvious that if such a Bill is to be introduced at all it should be introduced in the next Session, because the year 1853, according to the usual course of proceeding, would be the time when the dissolution of Parliament would arrive; and in questions of this kind we ought not to introduce a measure immediately before an inevitable dissolution. The Reform Bill took two years for its consideration; and therefore the year 1852 appeared to us the latest time that such a Bill could be introduced. With respect to the question itself, I have to say, that having, ten years before the Reform Bill was introduced, devoted my attention to the subject—having made several Motions upon it between 1821 and 1831—having had a principal share in framing the Reform Bill—I am perfectly satisfied with the general working of that measure. I see that it has produced none of the consequences which were foretold of the overturn of the constitution of the country. I think it has materially assisted both in the progress of useful measures, in introducing valuable reforms, and likewise in satisfying the public mind in times of discontent and insecurity. But I think that if you can increase the number of people enjoying the right of electing Members of Parliament—if you can do that with benefit to the representative system—if you thereby improve the representation, you at the same time gain this great advantage, that you place the representation upon a wider basis, and give an interest to a greater number of the subjects of the Queen in maintaining our laws and institutions. I think, however, that the greatest caution should be used by Parliament with regard to any measure to be adopted upon the subject. I think the

1039
general distribution of the Reform Bill has produced a fair representation of the intelligence, wishes, and interests of the people; and I should regret any change in the representation which deprived the House of Commons of those conservative elements which ought to belong to it. I cannot conceive that a House of Commons merely representing numbers would act in harmony with a monarchy, an hereditary House of Lords, and an Established Church. I think it ought to be the object of every man who approaches the subject not to create a House of Commons which should be a separate and independent power jarring with all our institutions, but that it should be the object of any one who introduced such a Bill to do as we, I think, did in 1831. Our object in 1831, was to give the people a greater interest in our institutions, to improve the representation generally, but at the same time not to hazard the spirit and frame of our constitution. Sir, these, therefore, are my views which I have ventured to lay before the House upon these three important subjects. It is at the present time, of course, a matter of entire doubt into whose hands may be committed the power of officially presenting any measures to the House, but I feel that upon all such great subjects as these—more especially upon the question of Parliamentary Reform—it is not for Ministers—it is not for official persons alone, to look to the solution of these great questions. They interest us and our posterity; they interest every Member of this House; and, therefore, every Member of this House is bound to watch carefully and to judge cautiously with respect to any measure that may be proposed. I have considered that in the course of my Parliamentary conduct—whether in the days when I was proposing reform to a small minority, and amidst the apathy of the country, or when I was urging a reform of Parliament amidst the enthusiasm of the whole nation, and with every prospect of success, I felt that my great comfort was that I was acting with men in whom I had the utmost confidence, on whose judgment I could rely, and in whose integrity I felt the most perfect faith. Perhaps the House will allow me to quote a few sentences from a great statesman, who used frequently to be quoted in this House, and who was often referred to as a guide to our deliberations. He is certainly much less referred to now, but his sentiments nevertheless are pregnant with much wis-
1040
dom. I allude to Edmund Burke. Burke says—
"The only method which has ever been found effectual to preserve any man against the corruption of nature and example is a habit of life and communication of counsels with the most virtuous and public-spirited men of the age you live in. Such a society cannot be kept without advantage, or deserted without shame. For this rule of conduct I may be called in reproach a party man: but I am little affected with such aspersions. In the way which they call party, I worship the constitution of your fathers; and I shall never blush for my political company. All reverence to honour, all idea of what it is, will be lost out of the world, before it can be imputed as a fault to any man that he has been closely connected with those incomparable persons, living and dead, with whom for eleven years I have constantly thought and acted."
Adopting these sentiments, I have to say that for far more than eleven years I have thought and acted with some of the most eminent men in this country. When I first came into Parliament I benefited by the counsels, and followed the examples of such men as Romilly, Mackintosh, and Horner. When I first entered office I did so under the auspices of the lofty patriotism, the calm temper, and large experience of Earl Grey; and with the unostentatious public spirit and incorruptible disinterestedness of Lord Althorp. With such men it was my pride and fortune to act. I will not speak of the living; but so long as it is my fate to take a part in public affairs it will be my endeavour to consort with such men as Burke speaks of, with whom I agree in public principle, and from whose wisdom I can learn the best path to the public welfare. So long as this country endures, that I believe will be found to be the best course to pursue. Some men may think that the standard of public virtue has risen higher than it was in the time of Burke, and some may think that it has sunk lower. My belief is, that from such men as I have mentioned, both this country and the world derive benefit, and that future ages, not only in this country, but in the western world, will thank them for the humanity they have inculcated—for the freedom they have enlarged, and for the just principles they have taught to the world; and as long as I take part in public affairs, whatever my station may be, I shall endeavour to follow the example of such men as my best guide to the public welfare.
MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, I request the indulgence of the House whilst I briefly endeavour to remove a misapprehension which exists in the mind of the

1041
noble Lord with reference to what fell from me the other night. The state of the case is very simple. It was assumed by Lord Stanley that on Monday last no reference would have been made to anything that had occurred as to the attempt to form a new Government. I happened to see Lord Stanley almost immediately before I entered the House. He expected that the noble Lord opposite would come down to the House; would, of course, as was his duty, state that his Government had been dissolved; of course state that Lord Stanley had been sent for; and would conclude, without any observation, by informing the House that Her Majesty had again sent for him. Under these circumstances, it would, of course, have been perfectly unnecessary to make any observation; but Lord Stanley authorised me, in case it should happen, by any chance, which he thought utterly impossible, that it should be mentioned that he had stated to Her Majesty that he was not prepared to form a Government, he wished such a statement not to pass unnoticed. Now, what occurred? The noble Lord, instead of merely mentioning the circumstance of Lord Stanley having been sent for, thought proper to state to the House that Lord Stanley was not prepared to undertake the task of forming a Government. It was not possible for me, circumstanced as I was, to have offered any detailed explanation. It was not in my power to make any reference to the transactions in which Lord Stanley had been engaged; but at the same time I was told that it was not proper that an unqualified statement, such as made by the noble Lord opposite, should be permitted to pass entirely unnoticed. That was the reason why my remark may have appeared to be so abrupt. Some physical oppression, under which I was suffering, may have made my phraseology less appropriate than the circumstances demanded; but I certainly did not intend to be either peremptory in my language, or discourteous in my manner. When I referred to the statement made by the noble Lord opposite, I never could have imagined that any one could have supposed I was commenting on any expression which might have fallen from the highest quarters; nor do I think my remark fairly susceptible of any such construction. I thought that the noble Lord was at the time in possession of Lord Stanley's letter, and that he had
1042
conceived and conveyed an erroneous impression of that letter—and to that opinion I still adhere; and I am warranted in saying that it is still the opinion of Lord Stanley himself. The noble Lord lately at the head of the Government did me the honour last year to say that I had conducted the Opposition in a fair and honourable spirit. [Lord J. RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] I appreciate such words from the noble Lord. I desire to deserve such commendation. But I must take leave to ask the House, with regard to the letter of Lord Stanley, now read, whether the impression which I formed respecting it, and the remark which, however uncouthly I uttered with respect to the noble Lord's interpretation of that document, do not turn out to be perfectly justified by the fact? The statement of the noble Lord, however unintentional, certainly conveyed to the Members who were sitting in my immediate locality, and, I believe, to the House at large, that Lord Stanley had announced, that although summoned by his Sovereign to do so, he was not prepared to attempt the construction of an Administration. It is right that the House should observe that the noble Lord opposite did in this matter that which was not done in the other House of Parliament. He connected the dissolution of his Government with my Motion on the subject of agricultural distress, and therefore it came to this—here was a political party, advocating certain principles, and making certain declarations, who take the earliest opportunity to declare that they are unwilling to reduce their principles to practice. If that representation were true, the political party in question would have been trifling with the country, the Parliament, and the Sovereign. But for such an imputation, there is not the smallest foundation in fact. I hope that the noble Lord opposite now understands my intention, and appreciates the motives which induced me to offer an observation, which, however unhappy I may have been in my method of expression, was necessary under the circumstances of the case. Sir, it is not my intention to offer any remark on the efforts in which Lord Stanley engaged with a view to form a Government. It is wholly unnecessary that I should do so, for at the moment I am speaking, Lord Stanley is explaining all the circumstances connected with that transaction. But I will express my conviction, that when that statement shall

1043
have gone forth to the public, the character of my noble Friend will, if possible, stand higher than ever.
[Here Sir J. Graham was loudly called for.]
SIR J. GRAHAM: I wish to state, Sir, why I waited for some intimation that the House expected from me some explanation before I—a private Member—thought it consistent with my duty to intrude myself Upon your notice on this occasion. I was afraid lest it might be deemed presumptuous in me, who have no official character whatever, to offer any observations on the present critical juncture of affairs, when an unguarded or imprudent expression might aggravate the difficulties which, from my heart, I wish to see removed rather than increased. But I regard what has just passed as an intimation that some explanation is expected from me, and I will endeavour to make that explanation as succinctly and as plainly as it is in my power to do. I hope the House will bear with me while I state as accurately as I can so much of the case as is open to me consistently with my duty to my Sovereign, and with the desire of not increasing the difficulties which have been stated to the House. On Saturday evening, Lord Aberdeen and I received the commands of Her Majesty to wait upon Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace; and there we were honoured with an audience of Her Majesty, who informed us that Lord Stanley not being then prepared to form an Administration, Her Majesty had empowered Lord John Russell to endeavour to reconstruct a Government; and Her Majesty intimated to Lord Aberdeen and myself Her command that, laying aside personal differences, we should meet Lord John Russell in a spirit of amity and conciliation, for the purpose of seeing if it was possible to form a Government upon a more extended basis, with due regard to our private convictions of what was necessary for the public service. That command Lord Aberdeen and I cheerfully obeyed; and it is superfluous, I hope, for me to say that, haying received such a command from the highest quarter in the realm, I should have been wanting in faithful obedience to my Sovereign—I should have been wanting in gratitude for the marks of condescension I had received from a Sovereign I had served for many years—knowing as I did, too, that the object nearest to the heart of that Sovereign was the welfare, contentment, and happiness of Her people—I say I
1044
should have failed in my duty if I had not done my utmost to meet Her injunction to act with the noble Lord, in the spirit of conciliation and friendship. The noble Lord has used some expressions with regard to me for which I am most grateful. He said that, although the communications which have lately passed between us, had been abortive in bringing us into closer conjunction on public affairs, they had renewed the feelings of kindness which formerly existed between us in private life, and which it was most painful to him to think had ever been interrupted. I most cordially reciprocate every sentiment of kindness which the noble Lord uttered; and with his permission I would gladly renew the terms of friendship which formerly so long existed between us. The noble Lord and I have been contemporaries in public life—we were at one time intimately associated in the bonds of kindness—I had almost said of affection—and I now beg to express a hope that I may be permitted again to call him in all sincerity my noble Friend. With respect to what the noble Lord has said in relation to public affairs, I do not wish on the present occasion—although I must touch lightly upon some of the topics—to raise an adverse, discussion, because probably the House will be of opinion with me that at the present juncture such a discussion would not be advisable. I will, however, advert to the three leading points to which the noble Lord referred; and upon these it is not to be expected that upon principle there could naturally be much difference of opinion between us. When the history of the past thirty years shall be recorded, there are three leading transactions which will fix the attention of the historian. I would say that the first is the triumphant advance of civil and religious liberty, as exhibited in the repeal of the Test and Corporation Act, and the emancipation of the Roman Catholics. The next is the extension of the suffrage, as manifested in the Reform Act; and the third is the establishment of a more liberal commercial and financial policy, which for the sake of brevity, I will call free trade. These three transactions will be found to mark the history of the past thirty years; and upon all these questions, sometimes as his colleague and sometimes, though in opposition to him, it has been my good fortune to agree with the noble Lord. When we came on the late occasion to the discussion of the terms

1045
of agreement, the first question raised by the noble Lord was this, "Shall we agree to free trade?" Why, upon this point there can be no difference of opinion between the noble Lord and me. This was the policy which was transmitted to him by the late Sir Robert Peel; it was the policy I advocated as the Colleague of Sir Robert Peel; and on a recent occasion, in the execution of what appeared to me to be a sacred duty and trust, I did my utmost to uphold that policy, giving ample credit to the Government of the noble Lord for having, by a faithful exercise of power, done their utmost to uphold it likewise. Therefore, with respect to the future, I shall say that upon every measure that was so shaped as to give effect to the extension of that principle, there could be no doubt or difficulty that the noble Lord and I could easily and naturally act together. Again, as regards the extension of the suffrage, the noble Lord and I are, I believe, now the only surviving Members of the Committee of the Grey Cabinet to whom the preparation of the Reform Bill was referred. Upon principle, therefore, there could be no difficulty between the noble Lord and me upon that subject. I agree with him, that so much having been conceded and so large an extension of popular privilege and democratic influence introduced into the constitution, it is necessary, in order that the balance of the constitution may be preserved, and the existing form of government upheld, that there should be a great caution in the next advance. Up to the present time, or at all events until recently, I thought there was safety in resisting any change whatever; but I am bound to say, that upon the whole, I am now not unwilling on principle to entertain the question of some extension of the franchise, guarding myself with the reserve, as I have already stated, that I can concede no extension which in my conscientious judgment I do not believe to be consistent with the maintenance and strengthening of the form of government under which it is still our happiness to live. The noble Lord said he had prepared an outline of a measure. I have not seen that outline; and, as in the preparation of a measure of this kind the utmost caution is necessary with respect to details, and as I have no knowledge of the details of the noble Lord's measure, and have had no share in its preparation, it would be rash in the extreme for me
1046
to pledge myself to support it. But again I say that to the principle of the extension of the suffrage, on my part, there is no insuperable objection. It now remains for me touch upon the last point—the question connected with the emancipation of the Catholics in 1829. And I am bound to say, that notwithstanding all that my noble Friend has said with respect to his readiness to introduce modifications and extensive alterations in the Bill now before the House, I cannot reconcile it to my sense of public duty to be a consenting party to that legislation. That it has been found to involve extreme difficulty my noble friend has stated in what he has just addressed to the House. He says, that with all his anxious desire, in legislation of this description, not to affect the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion within the realm, having the ablest legal advice, having proceeded with the utmost caution, he has now, even since he has introduced his Bill, reason to doubt whether the clauses, as now framed, do not interfere with the power of ordination, with collation to benefices in the Catholic Church, and even, as I understood him, with the enjoyment by bishops, and even parish priests in succession, of endowments destined for their support. Now, if my noble Friend has really found such difficulty, with all his caution, in framing such a measure, it points out to me that I am justified in regarding with apprehension—I had almost said with extreme dislike, and I cannot use a weaker term—legislation naturally involving consequences to which I so much object—legislation, which if these objections be removed by the diminution of the measure, even so as to leave it for all practical purposes really inoperative, will be regarded by Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects as penal and offensive, and will undo altogether the policy which for the last twenty or thirty years it has been the object of the best, the wisest, the greatest men of this country with difficulty to build up and to establish. It would not be expedient at present to involve the House in a debate upon this subject; to give effect to my opinion would require a greater enlargement on various topics than would be at all consistent with the view which I take of the public necessity on this occasion; but it is necessary for me to say that the opinion which I had formed with respect to this Bill has not been formed hastily, and is not inconsistent with the

1047
principles I have heretofore enunciated. Having for one moment thus rather glanced at the extent of my objections than the nature of them, it is necessary for me to proceed to the next point in what I have to state to the House. I had no communication with Lord Aberdeen upon this subject until the first day of the Session of Parliament, when I had just arrived in London from the north. It so happened, that during his residence in Scotland, and mine in the north of England, for four months, we had not exchanged a letter. No correspondence had taken place between us upon the subject. With my habits of strict confidence and sincere friendship towards that noble Lord, it was natural that, upon my arrival in London, before coming down to my place in Parliament, I should seek an interview with Lord Aberdeen; and I asked him what his opinion was upon this subject; and I found, to my very great joy, that his opinion was confirmatory of my own less perfect judgment, and that he entirely coincided with me. This difficulty, therefore, in regard to a junction with my noble Friend on the part of Lord Aberdeen and myself was insuperable. The noble Lord was willing to modify the Bill; but he could not, with his conviction of what was due to the public good, consent to abandon it. Lord Aberdeen and I, on the other hand, viewing all the circumstances of the moment, seeing no imminent danger from abstaining from legislation, and seeing, as we did, the most serious evils to be apprehended from persevering in this legislation, said we could not be parties to it even in a more modified shape. This difficulty was fatal to our junction with the noble Lord; it was insuperable; I believe agreement upon other points would not have been impossible; but this was a "cardinal" point, and the junction was impossible. Now observe, the objection to the junction was still more conclusive against any attempt on the part of Lord Aberdeen to form a Government; because I do not dissemble from myself, much less from the House, that the feeling of this country of Great Britain has been so excited that some authoritative proceeding on the part of any Government, however composed, would, I believe, be required, though I have known nothing so dangerous in my experience in public affairs as the demand for something to be done without any reference to the two considerations whether that something be safe or unsafe, practica-
1048
ble or impracticable. But 395 Members of this House, I think, in opposition to 63, had voted in favour of the introduction of the Bill; the feeling of the people of England and Scotland had been roused to the extreme, and evinced in county meetings and in every possible manner to be in unison with the view of Her Majesty's late advisers, and quite opposed to the view taken by Lord Aberdeen and myself. We felt, therefore, that the attempt to conduct a Government framed on the principle of not legislating upon the subject in the present Parliament would have been abortive, and an appeal to the people under present circumstances, on a policy adverse to such legislation, would, I am afraid, have involved Great Britain in a struggle of the most calamitous kind. We at once, therefore, advised Her Majesty that we could not undertake the responsibility of forming a Government on a principle which, I am bound to state, would not be consistent with the feeling of the great majority out of doors of the people of England. It will perhaps be said that this is an afterthought on my part, a mere subterfuge, to escape official responsibility. I wish to guard myself against any such misconception; and it does so happen, if the House will bear with me, I have irrefragable evidence to show that the fact is otherwise. In my own county of Cumberland, in November, a requisition was circulated for a county meeting. I have an intimate friend there, Mr. Howard, of Greystoke Castle, descended from an ancient Roman Catholic family, first cousin of the Duke of Norfolk, the near relation of the Earl of Arundel; and he, entertaining an opinion different from mine, was of opinion that it was expedient to call for a county meeting for the purpose of pressing for some legislation, in consequence of what is termed "the Papal Aggression." I addressed to Mr. Howard on the 23rd of November, a letter stating the reasons why I thought that course was inexpedient. I did not wish to aggravate the difficulties of Her Majesty's Government, which I knew were extreme, because I am bound to say that a step such as that which has been taken by the Pope of Rome, and more especially by Cardinal Wiseman, was of a character so offensive—[Cries of "Hear, hear!"] I must say "more offensive," because it was done with design and premeditation—that it was extremely difficult for any persons filling the offices which my noble Friend and his Colleagues then filled to allow such an insult to pass

1049
unnoticed. But, entertaining strong objections to legislation, I thought it right, not approving of any interference such as Mr. Howard contemplated, in my answer to him, to enter somewhat at large into my reasons for that opinion; and, although I am extremely unwilling to trouble the House with my private correspondence, yet, if they will bear with me, I will read that part of my letter which refers to this subject, having Mr. Howard's permission so to do. It is couched in these terms:—
"Netherby, Nov. 23, 1850.
"It would give me cordial satisfaction to cooperate with you on any public occasion in this county. But, although I am a sincere Protestant, and resent the haughty tone assumed by the Pope in his bull, and by Cardinal Wiseman in his pastoral letter, yet I am unwilling to join in the No-Popery cry, or to ask for the revival of penal laws, or for any new enactment which might fetter the Roman Catholics in the full and proper exercise of their religious discipline within the realm. When I supported emancipation I knew that the Roman Catholics acknowledged Papal supremacy, and would be guided in all spiritual matters by bulls from Rome. I knew, also, that their religion is episcopal; and when I fought on their side for perfect equality of civil rights, I was aware that the Pope might nominate in England, as in Ireland, archbishops and bishops. I did not attach much importance to the safeguard proposed by the Duke of Wellington, who did not himself place much reliance on it, that the Popish hierarchy so nominated should not assume the title of English or Irish sees occupied by Protestant prelates. I myself was a party to the recognition by statute of the dignity of Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops in Ireland; while I adhered, however, to the settlement of 1829, that the enactment prohibiting the assumption of local episcopal titles identical with Protestant sees should be upheld, I proposed in the House of Commons, on behalf of Sir Robert Peel's Government, the remission of the penalties which attached to receiving bulls or other similar instruments from Rome; and out of office I supported Lord John Russell's measure, which authorises the renewal of diplomatic intercourse with the Roman Pontiff. I took these steps deliberately, and I do not regret them. I believe them to have been necessary for the good government of Ireland, and I cannot believe that it will be possible to have one law for England and another for Ireland with respect to Roman Catholic discipline and worship."
I might have added, as I do here, that on the part of Sir Robert Peel's Government I moved for the endowment of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth—a measure which, I am bound to say, in my humble belief, shook the foundations of the strength of Sir Robert Peel's Government, but which nevertheless I believe to have been a debt in justice due to the people of Ireland, and which, whatever may have been its effects, is a measure I never can regret. Further, I was the organ of Sir
1050
Robert Peel's Government in moving the Bequests Act—an Act which recognised the authority and dignity of the Roman Catholic archbishops, bishops, and clergy of Ireland. It speaks of the Roman Catholic archbishop or bishop "officiating in any district," and Roman Catholic clergymen "having pastoral superintendence of any congregation." What is the meaning of "officiating in any district" but having a diocese? What is the meaning of "having pastoral superintendence of a congregation" but being a parish priest? And what does that Act do? It carefully gives to them in succession the benefit of charitable bequests made in trust for them subject to the expressed limitations. But I will proceed with my letter:—
"I am offended, indeed, by the arrogance and folly of the language which the Pope and his Cardinal have thought fit to employ in announcing an ecclesiastical arrangement which I believe to be lawful, and which I do not consider dangerous. But my displeasure will not induce me to treat with disrespect the religion of 7,000,000 of my countrymen, or to contemplate for one moment the revision or the reversal of a policy which, in defiance of the No-Popery cry, I have supported throughout my public life, which I still believe to be sound, and which is indispensable, unless by a melancholy necessity the vast; majority of the Irish people are still to be treated and considered as our national enemies. I have thus written to you without reserve my genuine sentiments. I am aware that they are not popular. I do not wish to obtrude them on public attention. The subject will in some shape probably be brought under the notice of the House of Commons; and then, in my place in Parliament, it may be my duty to declare the feelings and the opinions which I entertain. In the mean time I am desirous to avoid any premature or hasty pledge in a matter of such paramount importance. I am more anxious to extinguish than to add fuel to the flame of religious strife and animosity."
I put those opinions and feelings upon record on the 23rd of November. I avoided giving undue publicity to them, because I was honestly of opinion that it would add to the difficulty of a moment full of difficulty without any such addition. I, however, did not conceal them. They were not unknown in quarters where they might have produced a timely effect. But, having put those opinions upon record, I appeal to the House—I appeal to the country—whether it was possible for me, entertaining deeply the conviction of the truth of these sentiments, either to be a party to the further progress of legislation to which the I conviction of my noble Friend is pledged, or to think of forming part of a new Administration based upon a pledge to persevere in such legislation. I know, if I were seeking popular power, I should have ab-

1051
stained from this course; I know the ground I take is unpopular ground; but what I have expressed is a conviction I strongly and deeply entertain. I am afraid, if you commence this course of legislation, step by step you will be dragged into the penal code which broke down under you in 1829, which brought matters to such a dreadful alternative that the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, without acknowledging a change of opinion, yet from the necessity of the case, admitted that a change of policy was indispensable. Thanking the House for their kind indulgence, I have nothing more now to add; but when the question of the second reading of this Bill comes before the House, I shall venture to offer some observations upon it.
MR. HUMEsaid, that he was anxious at once to state the deep regret with which he had listened to the explanations tendered to the House that night. He certainly excepted the explanations offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon. To that right hon. Gentleman he had listened with great satisfaction; and he was delighted at the consistent conduct of the right hon. Gentleman on the question as to the liberties of Roman Catholics. He (Mr. Hume) was confident the right hon. Gentleman had taken the proper view, and that what he suggested would turn out correct—that if we valued the peace of Ireland we would have to give way on the question of the so-called Papal Aggression. We could not re-establish a penal legislation; and the sooner that was confessed the better. What he said now, on this question, he had said on all similar question's ever since he had entered Parliament. There had never been, since he had been in Parliament, a single Motion in that House, which had for its object the removal of a civil or religious disability from any portion of his fellow-countrymen, which he had not most cordially supported. But he had heard the speech of the noble Lord with great regret, for it was impossible not to feel regret at finding that the formation of a Government had been dependent upon this narrow point in respect to the "Papal Aggression." The people of England would be surprised and offended on learning, that during all this time, in this Cabinet crisis, none of the really important questions had been raised, whether the budget should be abandoned, whether the income tax should be continued, and, in short, whether we were to have any relief from taxation. Ten days had been
1052
wasted, and it appeared that the finances had not once been brought Under consideration. Now, the future Government would find that attention must first be directed to these points; and he felt bound to say, for himself and on behalf of others around him, that whatever Administration was formed, whether by the Duke of Wellington or by the noble Lord, it could only be received by the Country on the condition that it would proceed to carry out the principles of that commercial policy as to which the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon were at least agreed, the benefits of which the country fully appreciated, and the blessings of which they would net readily resign. He would say, further, that no Administration would be trusted, unless it was prepared to extend the franchise. No Government which refused Parliamentary Reform, which hesitated to remodel our taxation, and which was not prepared to accomplish extensive reductions in the expenditure, could be stable or successful. Because he believed this, he should not have objected to an Administration for a short time under Lord Stanley. He should like to have seen how far that noble Lord's protectionist principles would have carried him; and he was pretty confident that Lord Stanley would have disappointed and undeceived those to whom the country gentlemen had promised a modification, if not a revocation, of the recent free-trade measures. Office would have been a dangerous trial for the noble Lord; but as the results would have been beneficial, it was a pity that that trial had not been made. The noble Lord had failed; and it would now be seen that the protectionist party were answerable for a great deal, in having held out hopes which they knew they would never be enabled to fulfil. What Administration was now to be formed, he (Mr. Hume) could not guess. They had heard that evening of there being three parties in that House. It was certain that the days were passed when it could be a mere contest between Whig and Tory. The time was now coming when the party of the people must have power, and when the interests of the whole community would constitute the only policy. The only Government which would now be endured was a Government which would adopt measures of unequivocal Parliamentary and financial reform: and he hoped that no party would be so foolish as to come forward at this juncture without being pledged, nay, without being ready,

1053
to afford immediate proof that they would consult the interests and satisfy the demands of the people. He was as anxious as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripen, that, while they asked for reform, they should not seek a revolution, or accept any measures calculated to disturb the constitution. But he would tell the right hon. Baronet this—that the risk was in narrowing, not in widening, the basis of the constitution. No man in his senses could avoid seeing how enormous was the danger while they left six-sevenths of the population in a state amounting to slavery, and while the elective power was in the hands of but two or three hundred thousand persons. Whatever Administration might be formed, he would give them this advice—to look to the franchise, and to taxation, and not to this passing clamour about Catholicism. The Papal Bill was a trifling matter in comparison with the vast questions to which he had adverted. The people would become disgusted if such a matter were regarded by public men as the single difficulty, and if, in consequence of the obstacles raised on this point, we were left any longer without a Government. It was not creditable to see what was now going on. It showed a want of talent, as well as a want of union, that we should thus be driven from side to side in a manner which had been witnessed recently in France, bat which he had never expected to see in this country. If the noble Lord could give no better reason for having resigned the formation of the Government than the perplexity in which he found himself in reference to his Papal Bill, then the country would condemn him. But, in reality, all these difficulties had been occasioned by the budget—what he would call the abortion of a budget.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, that though the Motion before the House was the further postponement of the Order of the Day, yet hon. Gentlemen had assembled together rather to hear the statement of his noble Friend, than to discuss whether the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill should or should not be proceeded with. At the same time observations had been made, particularly by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, which, if absolutely unnoticed, would, he thought, add much to the difficulties which that right hon. Gentleman, or any other man who was called upon to share in the administration of the Government, would have to encounter. Let not his right hon. Friend deceive him-
1054
self. His right hon. Friend had stated that 395 Members, being a large majority of the House, had voted in favour of some measure for resisting Papal aggression; and he did not deceive himself when he further stated that the great majority of the people of Great Britain were hostile to that aggression, He (Sir R. Inglis) trusted, therefore, that his noble Friend and his right hon. Friend would both well consider that even in this House they would not be able to carry on an Administration which was founded upon the principle of tamely conceding to an aggression, which he conceived to be characterised by as much audacity as could have been exhibited by the Church and Court of Rome in the worst times of Innocent III. or Gregory VII. The people of this country would value more than any other sentence in the noble Lord's speech that sentence wherein he stated that he retained, with unabated force, the feeling, the principle, and the opinion Which had first induced him to bring forward his measure for repressing the Papal aggression. Let his noble Friend be fully persuaded of this fact, that the people of Great Britain would not be satisfied with any measure short of that which he had introduced, the feeling expressed out of doors being, not that it went too far, but that, though it might literally meet the precise case of aggression, it did not meet the real grievance, of which the Papal brief and pastoral were only a part. Without entering further into the subject, he (Sir R. Inglis) thought it was but justice to those who entertained opinions similar to his own, that some one should rise in that House and state what he believed to be the almost unanimous feeling of the great body of the people of England and Scotland, that in the vain attempt to satisfy the Roman Catholic portion of the people of Ireland, they would alienate the affections of the people of England.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, that the agitation which had taken place on the question of Papal aggression had been got up by interested parties, by the clergy, who, in fear that their enormous possessions should be attacked, endeavoured to avoid the danger by setting up a cry of this nature. As an Irish Member he was anxious to state that the impression on the minds of the people of Ireland was that the majority of the people of England did not share in the hostility which had been denounced against them. The noble Lord took great credit to himself for not shrink-

1055
ing on a great many occasions of his life. There might be a pride and glory in not shrinking, but there was a pride in shrinking from evil deeds and evil courses. It would have been well for him if he had shrunk in time. He had boasted of not shrinking during the famine in Ireland. He did not say it with bitterness, but the noble Lord had not showed himself equal to the occasion. Having the resources of a great empire, he did not do what he might have done to afford relief to a dying people. In alluding to the year 1848, he stated that there was a general system of rebellion in Ireland, organised by clubs. There was no such thing; there were clubs in a few towns, but not a single association of the kind existed in the agricultural districts. The vast majority of the people were not engaged in rebellion. If the noble Lord would not give up his object, why did he stand in the way of others—why did he impede the progress of the empire? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon had showed his ability to promote the general interests of the country. Let not the noble Lord stand in his way. Now was the time, the people of Ireland were ready to be conciliated. They were ready to forget their grievances, if they reversed the disastrous policy they had hitherto pursued.
MR. B. OSBORNEshould not follow the example of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, and import into the debate a topic which would give rise to debate. The empty state of the benches showed that the excitement abroad was not keeping pace within doors. He rose on behalf of his constituents, after the explanations, in which so little had been told, to express his astonishment that, with peace abroad, prosperity at home, and an immense surplus, the Government should have gone down in a sunny sea. He must be permitted to doubt that it was the division on the Motion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, or the division on the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey, that led to that event. In his mind it was episcopal rashness joined to financial imbecility, which caused the good ship to founder. Apres moi la deluge may have been a consoling reflection for the followers of a despotic monarchy, but it was none for the reputation of a great commercial statesman. He could not but think that the country had been reduced to a very low and fallen condition, when he saw the Government handed about between two or
1056
three noble Lords, and no attempt to call on some other party to assume the direction of affairs. Why should not a Government have been formed on the basis of the sentiments so ably expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon? Why had they not called upon that right right hon. Gentleman to take the helm? He would defy any statesman, whether he were the noble Lord, or even the noble Duke (then with the Sovereign)—he defied them to extend the operation of this Bill to Ireland. If they did, the taxpayers of this country must be prepared to add three per cent to the income tax. He defied them to carry out its provisions, whether they emasculated it, or struck out the provisions which formed the main strength and purport of the Bill. He took the liberty of telling the noble Lord, in attempting to bolster up his Government with a measure of this nature, that he was only tying a millstone round his neck. In perfect ignorance as to whether the noble Lord had really taken a farewell of office, or who was to succeed him, he would say that whoever attempted to frame a Government should do so on extended principles, no petty or peddling question should intervene; and if the noble Lord attempted it, in order to succeed he should shake out and unfurl the folds of his liberal banner. The House knew now, and the people ought to know it, that they had a man, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, who, if called to the head of the country, would conduct it with honour to himself, and with satisfaction to the people.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, the hon. Member for Middlesex has tendered his allegiance to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, on the ground that no measure should pass into a law with respect to the aggression committed by the Pope of Rome upon the prerogatives of the Sovereign and the independence of the nation. Now that was tantamount to a declaration that the objections urged by the representatives of a certain section of the people of Ireland should prevail over the unanimous decision of the people of England. ["No, no!"] It was neither more nor less. And he (Mr. Newdegate), as the representative of an English constituency, begged to tell the hon. Member for Middlesex that the people of England would consider the attempt to prevent legislation upon this subject in no other light. The explanation of to-night had,

1057
to his mind, elucidated many important points. The explanation of the right hon. Member for Ripon showed him distinctly, that, however he might be opposed to the opinions of the noble Lord who was at present at the head of the Executive upon one most important point, he was much more likely to follow that noble Lord than the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had explained to the House that the construction in favour of the assumption of titles from places and districts in Ireland by the prelates of the Roman Church, put upon certain measures passed by the Administration of which he was a Member, was not accidental. He (Mr. Newdegate) alluded to the Bequests and Dublin Cemetery Acts. The right hon. Baronet had owned that the construction put upon those measures with respect to the assumption of titles by the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland was his own act. He had declared that that was his intention. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not dispute the consistency of the right hon. Baronet in the course which he was now taking. It was perfectly consistent. But what was not understood at the time the right hon. Baronet presided at the Home Office was, that such was his intention. When the right hon. Baronet told them that he believed the conduct of the Government of Sir Robert Feel with respect to the increase of the public grant to Maynooth shook that Government to its foundation, he believed the right hon. Baronet stated a fact; and he (Mr. Newdegate) regretted that the circumstances which then existed to separate his friends and himself from those whom they were proud to consider, however mistakenly, the great exponents of their principles, were likely still further to sever them by the course which the right hon. Baronet now proposed to adopt.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that the motto of the noble Lord opposite was, "Any port in a storm." He dared not appeal to the people to try what their opinion upon all these subjects was. The noble Lord reminded him of a large sheet of sticking plaster. He had been so long on that side of the House that those around him were sticking to him, and he could not venture to separate from them. He remembered an old saying of "Scratch me, and I will scratch you." That had been carried out to a large extent. There was a good deal of itching in Members sitting on different sides of the House.
1058
The more they scratched, the more likely they were to receive consolation from each other under that painful operation. For his part he had not the slightest confidence in the noble Lord. The excitement out of doors still continued, and would increase; and as far as he legally and constitutionally could excite, he would. The country would teach the noble Lord, if he did not know it, what was his duty to his Sovereign. The budget had been shown up in its true colours as a piece of humbug and deception to the people, and there was an end to that.
MR. P. HOWARDsaid, that when the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire stated that the country was unanimous upon this question, he seemed to forget that in the capital of his own county—in Birmingham—a large meeting had been held, and a fair race run between the two parties, which resulted in a dead heat, so much so, that the presiding officer was unable to say which party carried the resolution. Unanimity should not, therefore, be talked of. He thanked the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon for his able speech and declaration; and he trusted that the statesmanlike opinions which he had enunciated would before long place him at the helm of affairs, and that he would see the principles of civil and religious liberty triumphant. For his part he was determined, whether the Bill was modified or not, to give it an unrelenting opposition. He was glad to see that the mist of prejudice upon this subject was passing away, and that the people of this country were not about to insult their Irish fellow-countrymen, or adopt the craven hearted policy of pursuing and persecuting a minority of their Roman Catholic countrymen in England. He was sure that any line of policy which should create an increase in the cost of the necessaries of life would not be acted upon for a week. Without wishing to revive the memories of past feuds, he would observe that the reflecting part of the country must feel that the policy of free trade and cheap provisions was one of the settled principles of the country. He was equally convinced that they now saw that the time was come when the enlightenment of the people admitted without danger of an enlargement of the elective franchise. He was quite willing to admit that in that course judgment, experience, and prudence were eminently necessary; but he was also persuaded that such was the general love of order that

1059
the franchise might be safely extended to a great number of his fellow-countrymen in the counties, and to a considerable extent in boroughs. By placing the representation on a broader basis, the prosperity of the country would be secured. With free trade, religious freedom, and progressive reform, they might hail the reign of Queen Victoria, not only for having increased the civil liberties of Her people, but for having confirmed and strengthened that religious freedom without which civil liberties were valueless.
MR. SPOONERwished to correct an error into which the hon. Member for Carlisle had fallen with respect to the meeting at Birmingham, when he described the contest of parties on that occasion as a "dead heat." The hon. Gentleman was mistaken. There was a decided majority at that meeting in favour of the Protestant feeling expressed in the town. An amendment was proposed, recommending that no legislation should take place on the subject, and that amendment was rejected by a most decided majority; but owing to the parties who voted against the amendment having gone away under the impression that the rejection of the amendment affirmed the original proposition, the latter, when it was afterwards put from the chair, was lost in consequence of their absence. In proof of the earnestness with which the Protestant feeling of Birmingham resented the Papal aggression, he reminded hon. Gentlemen that the address which had been presented to the Queen by the right hon. Baronet opposite from that town, had 16,500 signatures attached to it. He was exceedingly happy to hear the noble Lord opposite still maintain the opinion he had so manfully and constitutionally expressed as to the propriety of a measure on the subject, though he (Mr. Spooner) doubted the propriety of his attempting to mitigate it. The country was not satisfied with his measure, because, as had been well observed by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, it did not go far enough. The Protestant feeling of the country was raised, and nothing would satisfy that feeling but such a measure as should secure to the nation all these guards which formed part of the Bill of 1829. Nothing would satisfy that Protestant feeling but that the insult which had been offered to the Sovereign on the Throne and to the nation at large, should be repelled in a manner worthy of the noble Lord's speech, to which he fear-
1060
ed the proposed measure was not adequate.
MR. WYLDcomplained that the subjects of taxation and fiscal regulations had not been adverted to. Throughout the country large meetings of the people had been held at which they had demanded alterations in certain matters of taxation; and he assured the noble Lord that unless some large and striking alteration were made in the system, the middle and labouring classes would not be satisfied. His belief was, that alterations in the franchise were also necessary; and he did hope that whoever was in power would give consideration to these matters.
MR. WAKLEYhad attended with great anxiety to the explanations furnished during the very gloomy debate which they had had this evening, and he must say that, having applied the most powerful efforts to the subject, he was now as much bewildered with regard to the right definition of the state of affairs as before it commenced. The question was, Was there any Government? Was there any Administration? Gentlemen on the opposite benches were smiling; but he must confess, it appeared to him as if he should have had to perform a very special duty upon them this evening, and he certainly had not anticipated their smiles under the circumstances. He asked again, was there any Administration? He had been told that the noble Lord had resigned, but had not quitted office. Who were his Colleagues, and what policy did he intend to pursue? Not a word had been said with regard to the Budget. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the House; but not a word had been stated by him or any other of his Colleagues with reference to that subject. The House was left in a state of great perplexity. But why? Because those who possessed the confidence of the Sovereign were not prepared to take the correct course. He saw clearly enough that those who, in the first instance, brought in the Reform Bill, were not prepared to act upon its spirit, with reference to the Executive of the country. The influence of that Act had been felt in the country and in that House; but an obstacle seemed to be in the way of its being felt by the Executive Administration. It appeared that it was desired to govern by the fag-ends of the Whig and Tory Governments, and that the parties who had been returned to that House in consequence of the energy and ability they had dis-

1061
played in public affairs, were not to be admitted to the confidence of the Sovereign. But he would tell the noble Lord, that there was not the slightest chance of his forming an Administration if he persisted in the course which he had hitherto pursued. He would find that the people were completely tired of being ruled by Lordlings, of high aristocratic birth, but totally incompetent to perform the great business of the State. It was said out of doors, that there was a desire on the part of the present Administration to maintain those in power—in the places which had hitherto been possessed by two aristocratic factions. He feared that allegation was too true; but he did trust that the noble Lord would take this matter into his serious consideration; and he (Mr. Wakley) would say that, if another Reform Adminstration were constituted, it would be almost an insult to exclude a Gentleman who was sitting near him at that moment—he meant the hon. Member for Montrose. When they regarded his services to the country—when they reflected on the millions he had saved the people by the reduction of taxation, which he had advocated for so many years with so much ability and untiring energy, he (Mr. Wakley), as a reformer, should feel himself insulted and degraded, if younger men, who had displayed no such ability, were admitted into the confidence and counsel of the Sovereign. There were other parties to whom he could refer; but he would not do so. He was sure he had stated quite enough to induce the noble Lord who, as he was told, was at the head of the Administration, to reflect on the subject, particularly as the noble Lord wanted an Administration which should possess the confidence of the people. He would just briefly refer to the present position of things. They were the State Doctors, and it was their duty to consider what was the condition of the State Patient. Only a few days ago, a long debate took place in that House, the discussion was kept up for two or three evenings, in which eloquent speeches were made, on the Motion introduced by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, affirming that great distress prevailed among the owners and occupiers of land. He (Mr. Wakley) gave a hearty vote against that Motion; because he believed it was meant for mystification and delusion, and to inflict injury upon the Government. The House divided, and only negatived the Motion by a small majority of 14. What did the Doctors do on the
1062
other side? They stated that they had discovered the Patient in a most lamentable condition; that he was in a state which threatened dissolution; that, in fact, his afflictions were almost innumerable. But, at last, when they were called on, that very party stated that they were not ready to prescribe, and the other Doctors were called in; and who were they? Why, the very parties the other side had represented as having poisoned the Patient by improper medicines. He wished the hon. Member opposite could hear what the protectionist party were saying out of doors. They were saying that the Opposition Members in this House had pretended that they had measures of relief for them. They had now the opportunity; but what had they done? Their first act was to recall the parties whose previous prescriptions they had altogether condemned; they had abandoned the post, and thereby practically and virtually acknowledged they had no measures of relief. That was really what was said with reference to the protectionists. On the other hand, the people considered they had been unfairly dealt by; and, in his opinion, they entertained a well-founded belief on that subject. If a different course were pursued, they would be ready to support any Administration which desired to do them justice. But had justice been done? It was not fair of the noble Lord to leave them in doubt and apprehension as to the course which he intended to pursue. A budget had been brought forward; but, as to what would be done with it, they had heard no statement whatever even shadowed forth in the most distant way. He (Mr. Wakley) would say, that the noble Lord must reconsider his decision with reference to the window tax, and that the obnoxious proposal made in connexion with its repeal must be altogether abandoned; in fact, that the whole budget must be reconstructed.
LORD J. RUSSELL: The hon. Gentleman appears to have misunderstood what I stated. I stated that the Administration of which I was at the head, had offered its resignation. There is, in fact, no Administration now existing, and therefore it would be impossible for me, in any event, to state what are the intentions of the Government upon the subject of financial measures. It would be improper that I, or any one else, should state what the budget shall be, until the formation of another Administration shall be intrusted to me.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was in error in stating as to the Birmingham meeting, that the Protestant feeling was predominant, because it was impossible to ascertain which was the predominant party at that meeting.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYwould venture to state to this House that whatever had been the agitation on the question of Papal aggression, it would be speedily followed by no less convincing demonstrations against the inequality and injustice of that abominable measure—the income tax. When the noble Lord again announced, as he trusted he would shortly do, that he had successfully formed an Administration, and came again to ask the House to continue for three years a tax which had been stigmatised with the injustice and oppression with which the income tax was now loaded, he (Mr. Sidney) would venture to predict that such an Administration would have a very short existence. He trusted, whatever Administration was formed, that subject would be taken into serious consideration. He should be sorry to see any Administration disregard the feelings of the people of England on the question of Papal aggression. Whatever might be the state of the case with our fellow-countrymen in Ireland, he felt compelled to state that the feeling was all but unanimous in England, that it was the duty of the Government to put a stop to the insolent aggression of a foreign Power. They believed that an inroad was attempted upon the constitution and the religious freedom of the people, and he was quite sure whatever advantages the right hon. Member for Ripon might be able to lay before the people, they would sink into insignificance compared with having that question fairly and expressly placed upon a legislative enactment. If there was to be a new budget, attention should be given to economising the collection of the taxation of the country in both Customs and Excise.
MR. BANKESwished to address to the House a few observations on some remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Finsbury. That hon. Gentleman said, that the party to which he (Mr. Bankes) belonged had made a proposition to the House which was negatived by such a small majority that they were necessarily called on to prescribe for the benefit of the State. Now, that majority, though not large, was still sufficient not to put the protectionist
1064
party in the predicament in which the hon. Member affirmed them to be; and it appeared to him that the leader of that party pursued a most honourable course in recommending that others should be applied to to form a Government; but he might now add, as a comfort to the hon. Member for Finsbury, that if he were present in that House at the time when Members were sworn, he would find that night after night those who came to the table to be sworn were of the protectionist party, and even that two members of that party took the oaths during the present evening. Further, he would say, that though there was a small majority against them on the occasion referred to, yet that when that majority should be turned into a minority, they would not then forbear to offer those prescriptions which appeared to them suited to the state of the country. They had not shrunk, and they never would shrink, from performing any duty which they owed to the Crown and the people, either on the present or any other occasion.
MR. SLANEYthought that the present circumstances of the country strongly demanded the exercise of mutual forbearance.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
The House adjourned at Eight o'olock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Hon. Sir John Cam Hobhouse Bart. (having been created Baron Broughton of Broughton de Gyfford, in the County of Wilts), was (in the usual manner) introduced.
PUBLIC BILL.—3a Appointment of a Vice-Chancellor.

THE MINISTERIAL CRISIS.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: My Lords, when on Monday last it was my duty to address a few words to your Lordships I certainly did so in the confident expectation, and I may be permitted to add, so far as I am personally concerned, in the sincere hope, that it was the last occasion upon which I should be required to address you on behalf of those Colleagues with whom I have been recently connected. Circumstances, however, compel me, from respect to your Lordships, again to address you with regard to matters that have occurred since that time, when I merely stated a fact which it was important for your Lordships to be acquainted with, viz., that at that time Lord John Russell, my noble Friend recently at the head of the Government, was, by command of Her Majesty, engaged in an attempt to reconstruct the Administration of which he had been the head. My Lords, when I made that statement to the House, Lord John

997
Russell was engaged with that view in communication with a noble Earl—a highly respected and distinguished Member of this House (the Earl of Aberdeen)—and with a right hon. Baronet—a most distinguished Member of the other House of Parliament (Sir James Graham)—for the purpose of endeavouring to effect that reconstruction upon a larger basis than before. But I have now to state to your Lordships, that before that night had closed, this attempt of Lord John Russell had failed. I will leave it to others to state the grounds upon which that failure took place; I am anxious only to lay before your Lordships the facts in the order in which they occurred, and to state to you what is the present position of affairs. My Lords, after the failure that evening of the attempt made by my noble Friend Lord John Russell to reconstruct the Cabinet, a communication was made to the noble Earl to whom I have already alluded, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he and his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) were in a condition to undertake the formation of a Government. My Lords, Her Majesty having been informed that the noble Earl was not in that condition, and seeing that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had in the conference with which he had been honoured by Her Majesty only informed Her Majesty that he was not then, as I stated to your Lordships, prepared to undertake the construction of a Cabinet, Her Majesty resolved upon again inviting the noble Lord to construct an Administration, and the noble Lord did not hesitate in those circumstances to make the attempt. The noble Lord undertook this duty on Tuesday morning. Two days passed before the noble Lord communicated to Her Majesty his inability to succeed in that attempt. That communication needed not have been made, perhaps, till this very morning, from the circumstance of the adjournment of the House to this day. However, the noble Lord naturally lost no time in communicating the fact to Her Majesty as soon as he was enabled to do so. My Lords, this communication took place at a late hour yesterday afternoon. What I have now to state to your Lordships, and all that I can state is, that I myself this morning, by Her Majesty's command, waited upon Her Majesty, and I found that it was Her natural desire, in a state of things most novel and almost unprecedented in the annals of this country—after making every effort in Her power to employ for the construction of a Government those
998
persons best qualified from their position to undertake such a task, and having failed in those efforts—that it was Her desire to pause before She took further steps, and to obtain the advice and the opinion, in this unforeseen contingency, of a noble and illustrious Duke, one of the greatest ornaments of this House—one to whom on other occasions Her Majesty has referred in moments of difficulty. That illustrious Duke is not at present in the House. He has been summoned to attend Her Majesty, and in these circumstances I can only state my belief that this House will acquiesce in the propriety of Her Majesty's views in proceeding fully to inform Herself before She takes further steps in this important and delicate state of matters. My Lords, I will leave it to others to add—what they have a full right to do, and what the public may expect—a full development of the views and motives by which they have been actuated; but I cannot sit down without expressing this, at least, that however much I may lament, as I do most sincerely lament, the result of these negotiations, there is at least one consolatory circumstance to me that has attended that result—it is, that throughout all the differences, throughout all the difficulties that have presented themselves in these negotiations, those difficulties and differences have in no one respect whatever turned upon any personal considerations; that it was the natural result of honest differences of opinion, connected with important principles, that created a bar in the way of those arrangements, but not a bar that could in the least diminish the personal respect and regard which the parties have hitherto entertained for each other. From my own knowledge, in reference to that part of the transactions in which I had the honour to take a part, I may be permitted to say thus much as to the manner in which the negotiations throughout were carried on by the noble Lord opposite, and by the other noble and eminent persons to whom I have referred. I will only, before I sit down, endeavour to impress upon your Lordships—not speaking upon my own behalf only, or in behalf of those colleagues with whom I have been connected, but in behalf of all public men, of whom, unquestionably, great sacrifices of private ease and comfort may at particular times be justly required—that there is one sacrifice they can never be called upon to make, because it is not only a sacrifice of themselves, but a sacri-

999
fice of the honour and dignity of the Crown—I mean that of a prolonged attempt, under any circumstances, to carry on the public business of the country without the promise of that amount of support which is indispensable to all Governments for the purpose of enabling them to maintain the honour of the Crown, and to maintain and promote the efficient carrying on of the public service. Such a state of things, in my opinion, if prolonged, can never fail to be detrimental to the honour of the Crown, injurious to the best interests of the country, and profitable only to those—not the most respectable class of politicians—who, in such circumstances, find a consequence which does not naturally belong to them, and which they would not otherwise possess. I feel strongly that if public men undertake to perform public duties, they ought to do so with the full prospect of discharging those duties with effect. I have now endeavoured to put your Lordships in possession of the facts so far as known to myself. If I have omitted anything, there are parties in this House who will be able to supply the defect; in the meantime I have nothing further to communicate beyond the short statement which I have now had the honour to lay before your Lordships.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, the noble Marquess having stated the circumstances of the failure of the negotiations entered into by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) for the reconstruction of his Cabinet, it is now incumbent on me to explain to the House the motives for my conduct, and the reasons which led to that decision to which I felt it my duty to come. My Lords, on Saturday morning, when the resignation of the noble Lord and his Colleagues took place, I had the honour of being commanded by Her Majesty to attend at the Palace. I did so on the evening of Saturday; and, after the honour of an audience with Her Majesty, at which I humbly expressed my readiness to co-operate in the reconstruction of the Government upon any conditions which should appear to be consistent with my own convictions, and which offered a prospect of promoting the public service, I afterwards, in Her Majesty's presence, met Lord John Russell and my Friend Sir James Graham. After mutual explanations upon these subjects, similar to those which I have now stated, we met Lord John Russell on the following day. The noble Lord communicated to us the basis
1000
of an agreement on which the Government was to be reconstructed, and the principal measures which he proposed to introduce. I think we received this communication from Lord John Russell between four and five o'clock on Saturday. We proceeded at once to consider the propositions; but, having been detained late at the Palace that night, we could only examine them with the attention they deserved on the following day. On Monday, therefore, having entered into this examination, we communicated to Lord John Russell our opinions on this subject. I need not enter into the various measures proposed for our adoption. On some we were entirely agreed, and on others probably mutual explanations might have led ultimately to an agreement; but our difference was confined exclusively to a single measure. I felt, undoubtedly, an invincible repugnance to adopt the measure of penal legislation towards the Roman Catholic subjects of this country by the prohibition of the assumption of ecclesiastical titles; and, indeed, I objected to any legislation of this kind upon the subject. My Lords, I am quite aware that this is not the proper occasion to enter into any full discussion of this subject. I hope that, at no distant time, we may have an opportunity of considering this question, and I shall then be ready to express more fully the views and opinions which I entertain; but I must, at the present moment, state to the House the deep convictions and feelings which induced me to come to such a decision as that I have stated, and which led to a result so important to the great interests of the country, by leading to the failure of that attempt with which the noble Lord was charged. I felt, then, that this legislation must prove utterly ineffectual. It is difficult enough at all times, by force of law, to give a criminal character to acts in themselves indifferent, so as to secure the willing obedience of mankind. But when such acts are performed from a sense of duty and religious obligation, your laws become a dead letter; conscience and opinion are beyond the sphere of your legislation. No doubt you may persecute. But we have had fatal experience of the inefficiency of such a mode of proceeding. We had for 200 years very successfully, very effectually, tormented the Roman Catholics; but, nevertheless, we found that, instead of diminishing, we only increased, the number of our victims. I thought I saw in this measure a retro-

1001
grade step towards a system of laws which I had hoped was utterly abolished and extinct, and which was at variance with the whole spirit of our recent legislation. I believed that, in the late proceedings which had taken place, no law had been violated, unless, indeed—which may be doubtful—those barbarous laws the text of which still continues to disgrace the Statute-book, but which have been long obsolete, and which have very recently been stigmatised by the Legislature itself. But, my Lords, though I felt persuaded that no violation of law had taken place, I was not the less sensible of the arrogant tone assumed by the Roman Pontiff and by his Cardinal, in the brief of the one, and the pastoral letter of the other; and I felt that this might very properly engage the notice of Her Majesty's Government and even of Parliament. But I saw no sufficient grounds for legislative interference, with the view of abridging the religious liberty of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and impeding the lawful and regular development and organisation of their episcopal Church. My Lords, I found that my right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) entirely coincided with me in this view; and I may mention to the House that this agreement was arrived at without the least concert or communication with each other. Since we parted in the course of last summer—at the close of the last Session of Parliament—I have had no communication whatever upon any subject with my right hon. Friend. In the distant part of the country where I resided, no doubt, I witnessed the excitement which prevailed throughout England on the subject; but I thought that the alarm and indignation which prevailed so widely were unfounded and irrational. I certainly felt no alarm myself, and I had no inclination towards indignation, but rather to a feeling more allied to contempt. But, my Lords, when I saw such sentiments expressed in quarters which, I confess, surprised me, I undoubtedly became more curious to know what was the opinion of my right hon. Friend and of others with whom I have been in the habit of acting, and for whose opinions I feel great respect. However, it appeared to me that this was not a subject upon which I could with propriety venture to question my right hon. Friend; and so, in point of fact, until the day before the meeting of Parliament, I had not the most distant conception of what his opinion was. He called on me, I believe,
1002
the very morning of the meeting of Parliament, and, to my great satisfaction, I found that his opinions in all respects completely coincided with mine. My Lords, this absence of all communication was the case with all those noble and honourable persons with whom I have been formerly connected in official life, and whose opinions I have always regarded with respect. Until the day before yesterday I was entirely ignorant of the opinions, with one exception, of any of my former Colleagues; and at this moment I am entirely ignorant of the opinions of some of them. I wish to state this to show that whatever those opinions may be, they are not the result of any concert or communication with each other, but have been arrived at in a manner perfectly independent and separate.
My Lords, it is true that the noble Lord to whom was intrusted the formation of an Administration did propose to us to make material alterations and modifications in the Bill to which I am now alluding, and to which we so decidedly objected. No doubt those alterations might have removed some of our objections to the provisions of the measure itself; but it is obvious that such alterations must have excited great disapprobation and disappointment amongst all those who represent the popular feeling upon this subject, which has been so much excited in hostility to the proceedings of the Court of Rome; while at the same time the very remnant of the Bill would have been equally regarded as penal, unjust, and offensive, by the great body of Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. We, therefore, felt that it was impossible for us to make ourselves parties to a measure from which we could not anticipate any good, and from which we thought we had reason to apprehend very many and serious evils. My Lords, on the failure of this attempt of the noble Lord to form an Administration, Her Majesty was pleased to send for me to request me to undertake that task.
My Lords, I am fully aware how little able I should be at any time, and especially at so difficult a moment as the present, to conduct the affairs of this great empire in such a manner as Her Majesty's subjects have a right to expect. Nevertheless, there were circumstances in the actual condition of the country which might probably have led me to make the attempt. But, after what your Lordships have heard of my sentiments, and with the knowledge

1003
which I possessed that a measure of penal legislation had been introduced into the House of Commons with the consent of a great majority of the Members of that House, and believing, as I had full reason to believe, that a majority as large of your Lordships in this House entertained the same views upon the subject, your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I humbly entreated Her Majesty to permit me to decline the task which Her gracious favour would have imposed upon me. I felt that in the present state of opinion it would be perfectly hopeless for me to attempt to enforce those views which I entertained, and from which I was determined not to, recede. I felt that I could be no party to any course which I believed would tend to rekindle the flame of religious discord throughout the country, and would inevitably increase the religious animosities and bitterness which unhappily prevailed. It was for these reasons that I declined the task. The opinions which I have expressed may be completely erroneous. Judging, indeed, from what has passed—if numbers were the criterion of right—it would be almost clear that I am in error. Nevertheless, I entertain a confident belief that a great change will at no distant time take place in the public sentiment on this subject; but, my Lords, whether this be or he not the case, I trust your Lordships will give me credit for sincerity in my convictions, for the deep sense of duty under which I have acted, and will believe that nothing would have induced me to follow the course I have adopted had I not been convinced that I was acting in accordance with the dictates of the soundest principles of wisdom and of justice.
LORD STANLEY: My Lords, it now becomes my duty to avail myself of this, the earliest opportunity which I have been able to take, consistently with my duty, of explaining to your Lordships the portion of these transactions in which I have been engaged, and which I was precluded, by aft imperative sense of duty, and the absence of any permission on the part of Her Majesty, from explaining to your Lordships on, Monday last. I must commence with a period somewhat, though not much, antecedent to that to which my noble Friend has alluded. My Lords, Her Majesty's late Administration having resigned their offices in the course of Friday last—that is, the greater portion of them having come to the determination of re-
1004
signing their offices on Friday last, though, of course, they were unable to act upon it in consequence of the absence of the noble Marquess opposite, who was not then in town—on Saturday morning, I believe, an announcement was formally made to Her Majesty, that the whole of Her late advisers had unanimously tendered their resignation; and Her Majesty upon that occasion did me the honour of stating, that looking to me as possessing the confidence of a very large portion of the Members of this and the other House of Parliament, Her Majesty had called upon me to tender Her my advice as to the course which it would be most desirable to pursue under the circumstances. My Lords, I took the liberty, in the first instance, of requesting to be informed by Her Majesty upon what grounds the resignation of Her late advisers had taken place; and I learned from Her Majesty, that the grounds stated to Her for that resignation were the same in substance as those which were stated in the other House of Parliament by Lord John Russell, and m this House by the noble Marquess opposite—namely, that at no very distant period, a Motion which had been brought forward by Mr. Disraeli in the other House, in reference to the general distress in the agricultural districts, had been negatived by so small a majority, as to lead the Government to the conclusion that they did not possess that continued confidence of the House of Commons, which was requisite to the administration of public affairs; and that that opinion on their part was, further confirmed by the fact, that on Thursday last, the evening previous to the day on which the resolution of resigning was taken, they had been left in a minority on the Motion of Mr. Locke King, the majority of two to one against them being composed of their own ordinary supporters, a great portion of the protectionist party having been absent on that evening. My Lords, I must stop for a moment in my narration to express some doubt oil my own part, not inconsistent with the most entire respect for the noble Marquess opposite, and the most entire conviction that the two circumstances to which he has adverted led ultimately and finally to the somewhat sudden and abrupt termination of the late Government. My Lords, I must express my conviction that these were not the only, and I must be permitted to doubt whether they were the principal, causes of the resignation, of Minis-

1005
ters. My Lords, I cannot but think that that most important of all important questions which has been adverted to by my noble Friend the noble Earl above me, in a manner and tone which does the utmost credit to his frankness and sincerity—I mean the mode of dealing with that most difficult question which is commonly spoken of under the term of "the Papal Aggression," had much to do with the resolution to which Her Majesty's late Government came. I am not, of course, in the secrets of the Cabinet; I am bound to assume that the Cabinet had agreed upon a measure which they, as a Cabinet, intended to support; but I believe they saw before them, in regard to that question, difficulties as grave on the one side as on the other. On the one side they saw a state of Protestant feeling excited in this kingdom by the letter of the Prime Minister, not less than by the act of aggression itself, exciting them to extreme measures; and, on the other hand, a feeling existed in the minds of a large portion of their own supporters, extending even to some of their immediate adherents, and very much in accordance with the views stated by my noble Friend the noble Earl above me, that this was a question upon which no legislation was desirable, or ought to be sanctioned. I cannot divest my own mind of the strong conviction, that that measure, and the difficulties connected with it, were in a great degree the cause why the Government came to the conclusion that they were unable to carry on the business of the country. I cannot but think also that that feeling has been strengthened by the anticipated failure of the financial project announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not surprised, therefore—although undoubtedly the course which the late Government has taken has not been such as to induce me to think that so small a majority as fourteen would be held by them a sufficient ground for resigning their offices—I am not surprised, with these two serious difficulties staring them in the face, and leading them into a position in which they must either go against their own convictions, or forfeit the support of their own ordinary adherents—I am not surprised that with these difficulties, and with the difficulties created by the universal dissatisfaction which appears to have been produced by the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the not unwelcome occasion which presented itself on Thursday night by the defeat of the
1006
Government in a thin House, composed of their own adherents, should have been taken advantage of. Now, my Lords, not for a moment doubting the statement as to the immediate causes of the dissolution of the late Government, I ventured to state to Her Majesty one or two remarks upon these two causes assigned for the resignation. I hold in my hand now a copy of a portion of a letter which, by Her Majesty's express command, after the interview with which I was honoured, I wrote to Her Majesty for the purpose of placing upon record the advice which I had felt it my humble duty to render. From that letter I shall, with Her Majesty's permission, read to your Lordships, as the most authentic and correct record which I have, so much of those passages as will tend to explain the course which I pursued on that occasion:—
"He adverted to the two occasions specified by Your Majesty as the grounds of the resignation of Your Majesty's servants, and observed with reference to the Motion of Mr. Disraeli that it had been negatived, and although by a small majority, the minority were reinforced by a number of votes not hostile to the Government on other grounds, and on whose general support Lord Stanley and his Friends could not reckon; and with reference to the majority on Mr. Locke King's Motion, he observed—"
And, my Lords, I hold it to be a point not to be lost sight of, when it is stated that the Government fell by the votes of their own adherents—that the support of their usual opponents undoubtedly, had they been present, would have been given to them in opposition to a dangerous and mischievous measure; and when it is observed that in consequence of the absence of those opponents, upon whose support they rested, the Government met with a defeat, it is right that your Lordships and the country should know the facts of the case. Mr. Locke King's Motion for an extensive alteration of the Parliamentary franchise was carried by above 100 votes to 54. Of these 54 votes, 17 were votes of what I will call, for shortness' sake, the Protectionist party, and 27 more were votes of official men; and exclusively of those bound by official ties, the Ministry brought to their support 10 independent Members, and no more, I ventured to state these facts to Her Majesty; and I stated that, small as was the number of my Friends who voted on that measure, I believed their numbers would have been much greater but for an impression which undoubtedly

1007
prevailed "that Your Majesty's Ministers were not honestly exercising their influence to defeat the Motion." I believed that, and my Friends, and the House of Commons, believed it; and although, if they had believed in the earnest determination of the Government to act upon their own principles, they would have given them a generous and disinterested support, they did not feel themselves bound to attend in large numbers for the purpose of enabling the Government to defeat the measure, while it permitted so many of its own supporters to be absent. My Lords, after adverting to the particular circumstances with which the dissolution of the late Government was accompanied, my first statement to Her Majesty was, that after the part which I had taken in public affairs, after the expressions of which I had made use, after the opinions which I had uttered, after the pledges which I had given, seeing that if I had been a Member of the other House I certainly should have supported by my vote the Motion of Mr. Disraeli, regarding the distress among the agricultural class—avowed in the Speech of Her Majesty from the Tbrone—and declaring that it was the duty of the Government to take effective measures for the relief of that distress, it would be impossible for me, even if my convictions were less strong than they were—it would be impossible for me, as an honest man, to take office without a full determination to deal with that distress, and endeavour to apply to it, as a Minister, effective measures of relief. My Lords, I stated that if I could so far forget myself as to sacrifice my own honest convictions, the loss of honour which would be involved in such a course of proceeding would make my services worse than valueless. I said that I had entertained, and that I retained, the opinion that it was the duty of the Government, if it were impossible to do full justice, at all events to take steps towards mitigating the injustice under which the proprietors and occupiers of land in this country were suffering. I did not bind myself to any specific measure, although at the proper time I shall not shrink from stating the specific measure which I would recommend; but I did state that I would not take office on any other condition than that of endeavouring bonâ fide to give effect to my own conviction of the necessity of legislating for the relief of that class of Her Majesty's subjects. My Lords, I then proceeded to notice the position of parties in
1008
the House of Commons. And, my Lords, in looking at the difficult situation in which the country is now placed, it is not unnecessary or unimportant that your Lordships and the country should well know the position and the relations of those parties. My Lords, in the first place there is the party of Her Majesty's Government and of their adherents, with various gradations of opinion among themselves—with great differences of opinion, I may go so far as to say, between various sections of that party, those differences being still further increased by that which took place on a recent occasion, and which has almost led to the formation of another party—namely, the Irish Roman Catholic party, in the House of Commons. My Lords, there is, besides the party with which I have the honour of being connected, a party numerous, no doubt, yet undoubtedly in a minority in the House of Commons on every occasion, and which, unfortunately, though it no doubt comprises men of talent and intellect, yet contains within itself, I will not say no single individual, but hardly more than one individual, of political experience and versed in official business. My Lords, I feel that that is a great disadvantage for any party to labour under. But there is a third party in the House of Commons, not, indeed, very extensive in point of numbers, but most important as regards the ability, the official experience, and the talents of a great portion of its members—I mean that small party in point of numbers, though important in point of talent and experience, which has adhered to the policy of the late Sir Robert Peel. My Lords, looking at the composition of the House of Commons, and considering the practicability of forming such a Government as should be enabled permanently to conduct the affairs of this kingdom, or which should at least carry with it some appearance of stability—for I think your Lordships will he of opinion, as undoubtedly I am, that nothing scarcely can be so mischievous as constant change from one Government to another, or the formation of a Government with the prospect of its being speedily removed from office, to the great disturbance of public affairs—I felt that I had a very delicate task to perform; and bearing this in mind I shall continue the extract which I had commenced. And upon the words which I am about to read, I lay the more stress, because the words themselves are not unimportant, as exhibiting to your Lordships and to the country the whole

1009
scope and tenor of the advice which upon that occasion I felt it my duty to offer to Her Majesty, and upon which some misconstruction has prevailed, My Lords, I think the noble Marquess will remember that when he made his statement in this House, I felt it my duty, while I forebore to offer any observation, to intimate at least to the noble Marquess that one expression had fallen from him upon which I might have desired to offer some comment; and in the other House of Parliament, I understand a statement was made to the effect that the representation made of this affair by Lord John Russell, though certainly not intentionally incorrect in point of form, was still calculated to convey an inference which was not justified by the facts. My Lords, the inference which would be justified by the naked statement on the part of the noble Marquess here, and on the part of Lord John Russell in the other House of Parliament, was this—that I had abandoned as hopeless the expectation of being able to form a Government. I do not mean to say that that expression was used; but when it was stated that I was not prepared to assume the responsibility of forming a Government, that was the inference which the world at large might draw. Your Lordships will see how far that statement was correct. Undoubtedly it was correct in form and in fact; but your Lordships will perceive with what qualification that statement, if made at all, should have been accompanied, which qualification was not contained in the statement itself, and which it would have been impossible to supply without entering into a full explanation. My Lords, after leaving Her Majesty that day, about a quarter past four o'clock, I did not return home immediately, I did not reach my own home till six o'clock. On arriving there I found a note from Her Majesty desiring that I would place in writing the advice which I had given; and I have since had the satisfaction of receiving from Her Majesty an assurance that there could not be a more correct statement of what passed than that which I submitted and now hold in my hand. My letter went on to say—
"After, stating to Your Majesty the position of the three main parties into which the House of Commons is divided, Lord Stanley observed that the policy of the present Administration had met with the general approval and support of the most distinguished men of the party which adhered to the late Sir R. Peel, and that they had never yet met with a defeat from Lord Stanley's political friends; that a very important member of that
1010
party, Sir J. Graham, had publicly declared his opinion of the necessity of closing their ranks' to resist the presumed policy of Lord Stanley's friends; and as Your Majesty has been pleased to inform him that no communication had been made to any one previous to that which Your Majesty honoured him, he ventured to suggest that, in the first instance, Your Majesty should ascertain whether it were not possible to strengthen the present Government as partially to reconstruct it by a combination with those who, not now holding office, concurred in the opinions of those who do, and professed their opinion of the necessity of union; that, failing such a combination, a portion of that third party might be willing to combine with Lord Stanley, whose difficulties in such a case would be greatly diminished; that if it should appear that both of these arrangements were impracticable, and if personal considerations stood in the way of the formation of a Government of those whose opinions appeared to prevail in the House of Commons, Lord Stanley, not underrating the extreme difficulties which he would have to encounter, would, if honoured with Your Majesty's confidence, prefer any responsibility, and even the chance of a failure and loss of reputation, to that of leaving Your Majesty and the country without a Government; and he added that he believed an Administration formed under such circumstances would be more likely to meet with support, even from moderate opponents of their views, than one which should be hastily formed without giving time to show the impracticability of a different arrangement. …. He feels highly honoured by being allowed to submit to Your Majesty unreservedly his whole views, and while he should be sorry that this project should fall into any other hands than those of Your Majesty, he has that entire confidence in Lord John Russell's honour that he is sure no ungenerous use will be made of any portion of it which Your Majesty may see fit to communicate to him."
My Lords, I hope I have satisfied your Lordships that when called upon by my Sovereign, I did not in the first instance, hesitate to express my readiness to sacrifice everything but my honour in attempting to serve my Queen. My Lords, I hope you will be of opinion—I know my own motives, I am conscious of the sincerity of my own conduct, and of the integrity of the motives which actuated me—I trust your Lordships will be of opinion that I have shown no undue eagerness to grasp at power—and I hope you will also give me credit for having been influenced by no motive of personal ambition, and by no desire to place myself in a position for which I was not qualified. My Lords, I hope, on the other hand, you will give me credit for not having shrunk from the duty which devolved on me, as it might have devolved on any public man, considering the difficulty to which the Queen was reduced, of tendering my best services, even at the risk of failure in the attempt, and at the risk of loss of personal reputation in

1011
consequence of failure. My Lords, I hope I shall also satisfy your Lordships that, having entered upon that important task, I applied my best energies to the accomplishment of it—and that while I did not shrink from the difficulties, immense as they must have been under any circumstances, attending the attempt to form a Government, I did not unduly prolong the period of suspense by continuing to make the attempt when I had become convinced in my own mind that I should fail. My Lords, it was on Tuesday morning that Her Majesty again sent for me, informing me that the state of things I had anticipated had come to pass—that Lord John Russell had failed in the attempt to reconstruct a Government by combination with any other party in the State—and that my noble Friend, Lord Aberdeen, having been applied to, had stated his inability to form a Government by any combination with the present Administration, or from the members of that party which I hope it will not be thought offensive if I call the Peelite party. Her Majesty reminded me of the pledge which I had given, that, in the event which had occurred, I would not hesitate to face the difficulty. My Lords, I could not hesitate as to the manner in which I should respond to that appeal; and from Tuesday morning to Thursday afternoon I was unremittingly engaged in endeavouring to carry my object into effect. In the position of parties in the House of Commons, to which I have referred, it became a matter of the utmost importance to me to obtain, if this were practicable without a sacrifice of political consistency on either side, the assistance and co-operation of some of those who, though generally acting on Conservative principles, had yet been separated by the unfortunate differences which took place in 1846 from the great body of the Conservative party. My Lords, I will here frankly say that I foresaw a great difficulty in dealing with Foreign Affairs. My first object in endeavouring to remove that difficulty at the commencement was to ascertain whether, having failed to effect a junction with the late Government, my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Aberdeen) would be willing to undertake the duties of that department, which he formerly administered with so much credit to himself, and so much to the honour of the country; or whether he and those who acted with him would remain in what I cannot but think an unfortunate position for any party of statesmen, namely,
1012
that of being unable to form a combination with one or other of the two conflicting parties, and at the same time of being unable to assume office themselves; the consequence being, that with all their ability and all their influence, they only render the formation of a Government on either side impossible. My Lords, on receiving from my noble Friend a refusal, couched in language of the most perfect friendship, which I believe was quite sincere, I next sought to ascertain whether a noble Lord (Viscount Canning) who had served under my noble Friend in the Foreign Department, was willing to give me his assistance, by carrying on the administration of Foreign Affairs. I also failed in inducing that noble Lord to take part with me. I had conferences with various parties in this and in the other House of Parliament—I will not mention names—but with respect to one individual now present, I must be allowed to say that I never felt anything more deeply than the frankness with which he at once expressed his readiness to share the responsibility which I had taken upon myself by administering a department for which I thought, and for which I believe the country would have found him, peculiarly qualified. My Lords, Mr. Gladstone was expected to arrive in London on the following day, and I felt that it would be a great advantage to secure the assistance of so able, so honest, and so upright a man as Mr. Gladstone, in the House of Commons—one who is well versed in political affairs, and who last year, in contradistinction to the party with which he is connected, supported a Motion which was brought forward by Mr. Disraeli with a view to the relief of agricultural distress. But, my Lords, after communicating with Mr. Gladstone, I found that circumstances rendered it impossible for him, consistent with his own views of propriety, to take part in the contemplated Administration. I was thus deprived of all extraneous assistance in the formation of a Government, and compelled to rely entirely on that party with which I was immediately and politically connected, and among which, as I stated before, there were few, if any, men possessed of official experience, and trained in habits of public business. My Lords, even among the members of that party I found that some of those who were well qualified to discharge public duties, were by various causes induced to decline—one, by the pressure of extensive private concerns,

1013
another, by disinclination to join an Administration which appeared to hold put no assured prospect of permanence; and a third by an undue depreciation of his own abilities. I say, from three of those individuals I received declarations of their unwillingness or inability to join an Administration. Under these circumstances, and looking at the position of the House of Commons, I thought it was time for me to come to a decision as to the course which I should pursue. On Wednesday morning, when I last had the honour of an audience with Her Majesty, I undertook by eleven o'clock this morning to communicate to Her Majesty whether the experiment on which I had entered was likely to be successful, or whether I thought I should be compelled to abandon the hope of proceeding. Yesterday afternoon there met at my house a portion of my noble Friends here, and my Friends in the other House of Parliament, who had consented to take part in the Government, should it be formed. The whole state of the case was then anxiously and deliberately considered; and I believe I have their strong concurrence when I state, that it was their view, as well as my own, that although I might have been enabled to present to Her Majesty a list of names of Gentlemen who would have been fully competent, with the aid of an assured majority of the House of Commons, to carry on creditably and practically the business of the country, yet I could not lay before Her Majesty a list of a Cabinet, especially of Members sitting in the House of Commons, strong enough to face a powerful majority in the other House of Parliament—a majority ready to combine for purposes of opposition, though unable to act together for the purposes of government. I could not undertake to say that the Cabinet which I could present to Her Majesty would be such as to enable me for any length of time creditably to carry on the public business in the House of Commons against a powerful and numerous majority. My Lords, I stated, further, to Her Majesty—and I am the more anxious to pay so, because misrepresentations have taken place on this subject—at the interview with which I was honoured by. Her Majesty, I stated that the difficulty would be very great of the formation of a new Administration under any circumstances, as, owing to the position of public business at this time of the year, they would be exposed to the necessity of sitting for a con-
1014
siderable time a minority in the presence of a powerful majority—for that in the state of public business it was not possible, nor would I venture to advise Her Majesty at this time to have recourse to a dissolution of Parliament for the purpose of testing public opinion. My Lords, I state this, because I know an im-impression has prevailed that what has been called my first resignation was the consequence of the demand on my part that Her Majesty would give me the power of dissolving Parliament—a demand with which it has been said Her Majesty refused to comply. For that statement there is not the shadow of a foundation. I hope I know my duty to my Sovereign too well to insist upon a pledge upon a question with respect to which no Sovereign ought to give a pledge. On the other hand, I am confident that Her Majesty knows too well, and respects too highly, the mutual obligations, if I may venture to use the phrase, which subsist between a constitutional Sovereign and Her responsible advisers, to refuse to me, or to any Minister who may be honoured with Her confidence, the ordinary powers entrusted to a Minister, or to depart from the ordinary understanding of being guided by his advice; and I am authorised on the part of Her Majesty distinctly to state that no person would be justified in saying or holding out the belief that if I had felt it my duty to recommend to Her Majesty the dissolution of Parliament, Her Majesty's consent would have been withheld. But, my Lords, in the position in which we should have found ourselves, in presence of a hostile majority—a dissolution being impossible in consequence of the state of public business, and unadvisable, perhaps, at this moment on other grounds—I say, my Lords, we came to the conclusion that in such a state of things we could not, satisfactorily, carry on the business of the country, and that it was my duty, therefore, to take the first opportunity of laying before Her Majesty my resignation of the trust with which She had honoured me. I made the communication which I felt it my duty to make to Her Majesty yesterday evening at five o'clock. The noble Marquess has stated what has taken place since. I have only to add, that, so far as my communications with Her Majesty were concerned, nothing could exceed the condescension and the graciousness of manner—and more than of manner—with which any proposition from

1015
me has been listened to—with which any communication or any advice which I felt it my duty to tender to Her Majesty, has been received; and the confidence with which Her Majesty has thus honoured me, only adds to the regret which I feel that I in vain endeavoured to perform Her Majesty's service. I have no complaint to make of any one. I did not take upon myself the task of forming an Administration; I have not endeavoured to thrust myself into power. It was by no act of mine or of my friends that the late Government fell; it was by its own intrinsic weakness, and from the division among its own supporters that that Government was dissolved; and when it fell, I felt no exultation at the event, and I felt no undue anxiety to seize the offices they had held. In the position in which I was, I should not have been justified in assuming the responsibility of office unless I was assured that that assumption was the only practical mode of forming an Administration. But entirely concurring, as I do, in the remark which the noble Marquess opposite has made, that whatever sacrifice a public man might fairly and reasonably be called upon to make, he could not for any length of time carry on the business of the country without the support of a majority in Parliament, and feeling that this was not a period to take steps for ascertaining the opinion of the country, I found it was only my duty humbly to request to be relieved from taking upon myself the responbilities of office, which I could not have discharged satisfactorily for any length of time. There is one point to which I wish to refer in justice to Her Majesty and the noble Lord, Lord John Russell. I have already alluded to a report which prevailed with regard to an alleged difficulty which was said to exist in the event of my recommending a dissolution of Parliament, which I did not only not venture to recommend, but expressly said that at the present time a dissolution was impracticable. I have already stated the circumstances under which this letter which I hold in my hand was written. Her Majesty, in the course of our communication, said She presumed I had no objection She should state what had taken place between Her Majesty and myself to Lord John Russell, to whom She was about to give an audience. Of course I said whatever I had stated was perfectly at Her Majesty's disposal to be used in whatever manner She
1016
pleased; and shortly after I arrived at my own house I sent this statement of what had taken place to Her Majesty, in order to prevent the possibility of any misconception. Immediately on my leaving the Palace, I believe Lord John Russell returned. Now, I wish to state those circumstances, to refute the reports which I see have been industriously circulated, either that Her Majesty was treating with, other advisers while carrying on a communication with me, or that the noble Lord had unduly thrust himself forward while other negotiations were pending. At half-past four o'clock my resignation was tendered; at half-past five Lord John Russell was sent for; and at half-past six this copy of what took place at my audience of Her Majesty was sent, and was by Her Majesty communicated to Lord John Russell. I mention these facts, in order that it may not be supposed by any portion of the public that Her Majesty communicated with one Minister while another person who had been charged with the responsibility of attempting to form a Government had not resigned that duty; or that, on the other hand, Lord John Russell had taken the presumptuous step of forcing himself upon the attention of the Sovereign while negotiations were going on with another person whom Her Majesty had intrusted with the duty of forming an Administration. I might here stop, so far as the personal explanations which I am able to make are concerned; but I cannot do so in the present strange state of political affairs, without adverting for a few moments to some of those leading topics which appear at this time to present an insuperable obstacle to the union of public men. That I am mortified—that I feel it as a mortification—that I have been unable to form a Government which could carry on satisfactorily the affairs of the country, I will not pretend to deny; but I trust your Lordships will not suppose that I entertain any hostility, apart from political differences, towards those to whom I am politically opposed. I may, however, be permitted to express my regret, not upon personal but upon public grounds, that I was unsuccessful in forming an Administration; for I might, I think, have brought to a satisfactory issue two or three important questions which appear to be the great stumbling blocks of politicians at the present moment. It may be presumptuous in me to say so; I might, perhaps, have been deceived in my expectations; but,

1017
having no object in concealment, and thinking that a frank declaration of opinion at this time from public men may not be injurious to the country or to the possible successors of one who has failed in framing an Administration, I will step out of the ordinary course which, under other circumstances, I should pursue, and will frankly state the course which, if I had been enabled to form a Ministry, I should have felt it most desirable to adopt with respect to these important questions—with reference to the financial condition of the country—with reference, as combined with the financial question, to the relief of agricultural distress—and with regard to that all-important question which has been stated by my noble Friend above me to have been the main point upon which he found it impossible to form an Administration. I begin, then, by saying, that financially I hold it to be an object not only of vital importance, but one to which the faith of successive Ministries has been pledged, that the income tax should not be permitted to degenerate into a permanent tax. In 1842 Sir Robert Peel introduced that tax. He introduced it for a limited period, with the express declaration that it was to enable him to deal with other portions of the financial system of the country in a mode which he hoped would conduce to the benefit of commerce generally, and would raise the revenue to an equality with the expenditure; and he pledged himself that at the expiration of that period the income tax should cease. Without that pledge there is not a man living who believes that the House of Commons, in 1842, would have consented to the imposition for an hour of a tax which has always been held to be the resource in time of war—which has always been deprecated in time of peace—and which, take it as you will, levy it as you please, must be full of anomalies and inconvenience, pressing variously upon different classes of the community with a complicated injustice that no modification can altogether remove. Sir Robert Peel anticipated, when he proposed the tax, that it would be continued for five years; but, in the first instance, he asked Parliament to sanction it for three years, expressing his assurance that Parliament would not refuse to continue it for the remainder of the time during which he believed it would be necessary, should circumstances prove that the system was working well. The first renewal, therefore, in 1845, was only the fulfilment of
1018
the original scheme of Sir R. Peel, and the extension for the remainder of the term which he had anticipated, and announced as in his opinion necessary, when he introduced the measure. The year 1848, when the renewal of the income tax was proposed, was a period, as your Lordships will recollect, of the deepest distress, following immediately upon the disastrous year 1847; and, to maintain the credit of the country, it was absolutely necessary to continue it. But we have now arrived at a very different state of things. We have, in the first instance, a surplus of 2,500,000 l. to deal with. We have, it is said, a state of general prosperity in the country. I do not wish to deny the existence of that prosperity, though I fear I see indications in some quarters that it is not as permanent or as fully established as some of your Lordships may imagine. But, when the country is in a state of general prosperity, when we have a surplus revenue of 2,500,000 l., and at the expiration of nine years from the time when the income tax was imposed, I hold that a further renewal of that tax, without any security taken either for its modification or abolition, would be virtually declaring that the income tax shall be saddled upon the country for ever. When I remember, too, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared in his budget that there were various other classes of the community as well entitled to relief as the class which paid the window duties, and that he stated that when he had disposed of the paper duties, the tea duties, and the tobacco duties, and had equalised the system of taxation generally, he would be prepared to deal with the income tax, I think it is not assuming too much to suppose, that if Parliament had again allowed the renewal of the income tax without any steps being taken for its limitation, they would virtually have imposed that tax upon the country permanently. A short time before the introduction of the budget it was generally understood to be the intention of Ministers to renew the income tax without alteration, and there was a very general feeling on the part of many persons in favour of an opposition to the income tax, while they demanded the total abolition of the window duties. I was consulted at that time as to the propriety of taking that course as a party move; but I did not hesitate to state that I never would be a party to any step or measure in Opposition, which, if I were charged with the responsibility of Govern-

1019
ment, I did not see my way towards being able to accomplish; and, believing that the credit of the country would not at this moment bear the entire abolition of the income tax, I stated that I could not support a measure which would leave a deficiency of at least 2,500,000 l. in the revenue. I was, however, of opinion that a course should be taken declaratory of the determination of Parliament to deal with the income tax as rapidly as the state of the national finances would allow, and that its reduction should not be rendered a matter of impossibility by frittering away every surplus as it arose. I believe that, without interfering with the credit of the country, dealing with the existing surplus, without attempting to alter or reduce other taxes, in the course of this year a reduction of from one-third to one-half in the amount of the income tax might safely and beneficially be effected. I was desirous that Parliament should, by some resolution, pledge itself to the gradual reduction of the income tax, with a view to its final abolition; and I should have been prepared, if the duty had devolved upon me, to recommend to Parliament to grant only such a renewal of that tax as would reduce its amount by one-third or one-half; and I should have been prepared to pledge myself that any surplus revenue that might arise should, in the first instance, be applied towards the further reduction and final extinction of that tax. But I may go further, for I may state now that which I was not justified in stating—at least, I did not feel called upon to state—in answer to an appeal made to me a few nights ago by a noble Lord who is not now present. I will take this opportunity, therefore, of explaining to your Lordships, fairly and frankly, what are my views and intentions upon the subject of agricultural distress. I hold it to be an admitted and undisputed fact, that the land is at this moment the only suffering interest, and that it is labouring under an amount of taxation of various descriptions far exceeding the amount which falls upon other classes of the community. I believe also—and it will not be contradicted, I think, by any one—that the result of the measure of 1846 for the total repeal of the corn laws and the unrestricted introduction of foreign corn, has had an effect upon prices far more extensive than was expected, more extensive than was desired, and more extensive than could possibly have been anticipated by the framers of the Bill. When the corn laws
1020
were repealed, it was asserted, and endeavoured to be proved, that, under ordinary circumstances, from the state of foreign markets, the price of com could not, on an average, fall below 48 s. We now see it at 37 s. or 38 s.; and, with no desire to check the free exercise of commerce, With no desire to reverse the general policy of the commercial system introduced by Sir Robert Peel, I say that, by imposing a moderate duty upon the importation of foreign corn, you might raise a very considerable revenue for the country, while you would not materially raise the existing price to the consumer; but you would, by the acquisition of a duty of 1,500,000 l. or 2,000,000 l., enable the Government more rapidly to effect that object to which I have referred as of great advantage to the community at large—the extinction of the income tax. I do not hesitate, therefore, to say that, if it were found impracticable, as I think it would be, to effect such a commutation of the system of taxation as to place all classes upon a perfect level, then, according to the best free-trade authorities, it is not adverse to the principle of free trade to impose, in favour of the class which is subjected to an undue share of burdens, countervailing duties to an amount sufficient to meet those burdens; and I believe that, by the imposition of a moderate duty upon the import of corn and provisions, you might raise such an amount of taxation as, at the end of the year after this, would enable the country altogether, and I trust for ever, to abolish the income tax. I venture to say that that relief of the finances of the country, and the removal of that pressure of taxation, would infinitely and immeasurably exceed any possible trifling alteration in the price of food—and trifling indeed it must be—which could touch the consumer. I do not want to enter upon the general question. I express my frank opinion, that the question of protection, or, if you please, the question of the unrestricted import of provisions, is one which must be settled by the country, once and for ever, whenever an appeal is made to the country for its decision. I cannot take the present policy as more than an experiment in the course of being carried out. Should the next general election prove that the sense of the country is in favour of the perfectly unrestricted import of all provisions, unaccompanied by those duties which, in other countries, are imposed for purposes of revenue upon all

1021
articles, and which, in this country, are imposed, and to a vast extent, upon articles of prime necessity for consumption hardly inferior to that of bread itself—I say, if that be the opinion of the country at the next election, I, for one, and I believe the majority of your Lordships and of Parliament, will respectfully bow to that expression of the sense of the country. But until I see that expression of the feeling of the country, when I find that the present system is working an amount of evil far greater than was anticipated either by its friends or by its opponents—certainly greater than I anticipated myself—I cannot, as an honest man, abandon the attempt to relieve the existing distress, by retracing the false step which has been taken, and to remedy the wrong done, by the imposition of a moderate import duty upon corn. We have been told that the labouring classes in the agricultural districts are well off. Now, in some counties and districts, perhaps, distress has not reached the labourer so soon as it has touched his employer: that may be so; but that is a state of things which cannot continue; it is as impossible for labourers to continue in a state of prosperity when the employer of labour is daily, weekly, and hourly seeing his capital diminish, and his means dwindle away, as it is for a river to continue to flow if you cut off all the springs by which it is supplied. I feel that an apology is due to your Lordships, particularly upon such an occasion as this, for venturing to state incidentally, but I hope frankly, the views I entertain, and the policy which, undoubtedly, I should pursue. I have no desire to reverse the commercial system of Sir Robert Peel; but to modify it in those cases in which a modification would, I think, largely recruit the revenue, and enable you to take off unjust taxes, as I conceive them to be, might not injure the consumer, and might arrest the progress of that ruin which I foresee rapidly coming upon the most important class of this country.
One word now, my Lords, upon the important question of Papal aggression. My noble Friend above me (the Earl of Aberdeen) has stated his strong conviction, that no penal measures should be adopted now, or at any time, for restricting religious opinion. No man can feel that more strongly than I do, or more entirely concur with my noble Friend. I should be the last man to consent to the introduction of any measure which would de-
1022
prive any portion of my fellow-countrymen of the free and full exercise of their religious opinions, and the free and full performance of their religious duties. But I must draw a distinction between penal laws directed against religious opinions, and Parliamentary legislation directed against foreign aggression and interference. I know not whether the Pope and his emissaries have violated the law or not; but Lord John Russell, in his too celebrated letter, declared his intention to ascertain from the law-officers of the Crown whether the law had been violated; and stated that if it had not been violated, he would propose an amendment of the law. I think the act of the Pope, in itself of minor importance, was rendered infinitely more important by the insulting tone and offensive manner in which it was, in the first instance, introduced—announced as the act of an authority claiming jurisdiction over the realm of England, and assuming to interfere with the undoubted rights and prerogatives of the Crown, and with the independence of Parliament. I think that was a proceeding which it was impossible, consistently with the dignity of the Crown and of Parliament to pass over; but I cannot say I approve of the mode in which it has been sought to meet that insult. I cannot but think that the measure which has been introduced by the Government, bears upon the face of it the marks of passion and of haste rather than of mature and calm consideration; and for my own part I confess, if that were to be the extent of the legislation contemplated by the advisers of the Crown, I think, with my noble Friend above me, that it would be better not to legislate at all, than to legislate ineffectually. A strong feeling of indignation has been raised on the part of the Protestant portion of the community, vast irritation has been excited among the Roman Catholics, and, after all, a measure is introduced which will, I fear, be practically altogether inoperative. If the law had not been violated, I think the offence would have been more aptly met by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, declaring in the first instance the unconstitutional character of the aggression, not recognising the validity of the titles which were assumed to be conferred, and declaring that in virtue of those titles the holders or assumed holders of them had neither precedence nor authority of any kind within this realm. [Lord ABERDEEN: Hear!] Yes; but then I am afraid I should have se-

1023
parated from my noble Friend, and been disposed to go further than he would follow me. I think the Bill of the Government does not touch the real danger. I think it touches the insult, and it touches it ineffectually; but the real danger is this—the gradual growth and encroachment of the power of the Pope, and of the prelates acting under his authority, in interfering with matters not purely and strictly religious, and in assuming to themselves powers which, if not in violation of the law of the land, are at variance with that law. While I contend that religious freedom ought to be strictly guaranteed, I say, on the other hand, that Papal aggression ought to be as strenuously resisted now as it was resisted in the days of our ancestors; but I frankly say, that I am not prepared to legislate upon this subject at the present moment. I do not think the amount of information before us as to the facts of the case justifies us in legislating; and this is a question of all others upon which, if you do legislate, you must legislate deliberately, upon full information, and in such a manner as to make your legislation effective. I believe the law is in a most anomalous state on this subject. The recent amendments of the law have left, in this case, the absurdity that it is declared high treason to introduce a bull or rescript from Rome; and, as the offence is still declared to be high treason, it is impossible to proceed against it as for a misdemeanour, and yet the penalty is altogether taken away; the law is thus rendered wholly inoperative. There are various points on which it is right that Parliament and the country should be acquainted with the practical results which would follow from the assumption of power, recognised or connived at, on the part of the Roman Catholic priesthood in this country. For example, what effect will the fact of the Roman Catholic bishops being enabled to meet in synod have upon the binding character of their enactments? Do they, by acting in an organised body, obtain an authority recognised by all Roman Catholics as a legislative authority, which when they are not so acting, they do not possess? If so, the question becomes of importance, not whether there shall be a Roman Catholic Bishop of Birmingham, but whether there shall be in this country an imperium in imperio, a body of men acting in synod, and passing laws which, enforced by the most awful of all penalties—the spiritual censures of the Church, have a power over
1024
a vast portion of the Roman Catholic population superior to that of the law of the land? In 1829 the Roman Catholic Relief Act introduced various restrictions which were called at the time securities for Protestants. That measure required that registers should be kept of the members of all religious communities, and subjected to banishment persons who were not so registered. Is that a power which it is necessary to possess? If it is necessary to possess it, why is it not exercised? If it is not intended to be exercised, why does it remain upon your Statute-book? We, since 1829, have connived at the gradual encroachments of the Roman Catholic Church. We have shut our eyes to her encroachments on the law, but we have shut our eyes intentionally. The Pope, by his late proceedings, has declared that there shall be no connivance at such encroachments—that there shall be no alternative between that which we prohibit, and that which we distinctly allow. I think it unjust and unwise to prohibit by law that which you mean to permit in practice. I conceive that there are grave questions depending upon the position of Roman Catholics in this country with regard to the rights of their own Church, to the disposition of property, and the manner in which trust property is held for Roman Catholic purposes. I think it is a subject for inquiry how religious houses of various descriptions are carried on in this country; and it is a grave question whether all religious houses should not be subjected to the power of visitation, in order that it may be ascertained that no persons are retained within them contrary to the law of the land. But upon the whole of this question relative to the position of the Roman Catholic population, with regard to this State and to a Foreign Power, I believe that Parliament and the country are equally ill-informed. If it be necessary that Roman Catholics should have communications upon purely spiritual questions with Rome, I say, do not shut your eyes to the fact that these communications take place; permit such communications as may be necessary for purely religious purposes, but at the same time effectually prevent any proceedings which interfere with the civil rights of Her Majesty's subjects. This is a subject which ought to be dealt with upon a great scale, temperately, deliberately, and upon full information; and the loss of one, or even of two years, if it were necessary,

1025
would be an evil of little magnitude compared with the evil of dealing hastily and ineffectually, passionately, and in an irritating manner, with this great and important question, the chief evils and dangers of which you leave wholly untouched by your proposed legislation. I should have recommended that, in both Houses of Parliament, inquiries should take place as to the actual relation in which the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen stand towards the State, towards any foreign Power, and towards their own priests and prelates. I would have advised that this subject should be fully investigated, the present anomalies of the law really exposed, and amendments of the law suggested for the consideration of Parliament; and, though I know the difficulties of dealing with such a subject, I believe it would not be impracticable to introduce measures which should secure this country from the interference and usurpation of a foreign Power, and at the same time should not take from, but add to, the religious freedom of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and place the Roman Catholic laity in a condition far more satisfactory to themselves than that in which they are at present—under the uncontrolled domination of the bishops and clergy of their Church.
I feel, my Lords, how greatly I ought to apologise for having detained you at this length. I have failed in the task which the favour of my Sovereign assigned me; but I have been placed in a position of great difficulty, as indeed difficulties exist on all sides, arising out of the three or four complicated questions to which I have alluded, that keep apart men between whom, upon other questions, there may be comparatively little difference of opinion. However little authority I may pretend to, I was anxious that my views should not be misinterpreted, and I trust your Lordships will not think that I have unduly trespassed upon your time in making a full and frank declaration of the course of policy which, if I had been called to office, I should have ventured to recommend. I trust your Lordships will be of opinion, that, on the one hand, I have not been unduly ambitious of power, and that, on the other hand, you will think that I have neither unduly shrunk from responsibility, nor pertinaciously persevered in attempting to form a Government when I saw it was impracticable. And I hope, above all, that you will not see in any part of the course I have pursued anything which
1026
would be discreditable to my motives, or derogatory from that fair character which I hold to be the most estimable possession of all statesmen and public men.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I will not follow the noble Lord through the various topics to which he has alluded in the course of his speech, but I am desirous of correcting some misapprehension which appears to exist with respect to my description of what passed between the noble Lord and Her Majesty. What I said was, that the noble Lord having been sent for by Her Majesty, and having been supposed to have been sent for to undertake the task of forming an Administration, the noble Lord had left Her Majesty, stating that he was not then prepared to undertake that task; and, if I am not much mistaken, I laid a considerable emphasis on the word "then," being aware that that did not infer the impossibility of undertaking the task under other circumstances. That was the state of things—the noble Lord was not then prepared; and, in consequence of his not being then prepared, my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) was sent for, who would not have been sent for if the noble Lord had been so prepared; and, my Lords, upon that I thought it would have been travelling out of my part if I attempted to do that for the noble Lord which he would soon afterwards have the opportunity of doing for himself, namely, on behalf of the noble Lord, to develop and explain what were the particular circumstances which then prevented him from undertaking the task of forming an Administration. I am extremely glad he has had the opportunity now. I was aware that opportunity would soon afterwards present itself; but I am bound to say the noble Lord has availed himself of it in a manner and in a spirit, and with a manliness of purpose, that does honour to him. Now, my Lords, having set that matter right, I must refer for one moment to one most important topic of the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) who spoke immediately after me. In the course of the explanation by that noble Earl, he has thought it necessary to advert, at more length than I should have expected he would have done on this occasion, not only to the circumstance—which is quite correct—of the difference of opinion on the subject of the Roman Catholic Bill having been the chief, if not the only, difference which had occurred between him and my noble Friend Lord John Russell; but, in stating that difference, he has pro-

1027
ceeded at some length to characterise the measure proposed by my noble Friend in the other House of Parliament. I could not sit still in this place and hear that measure so characterised without protesting against the justice of the character he has given to that measure. I am distinctly anxious to state, that whereas the noble Earl has described that measure as one of a penal character against the Roman Catholic religion—I am not sure he did not introduce the word "persecution," a word which I hope was uttered in an unguarded moment, but I have only to state it was as far from the thought of my noble Friend—I am sure it was as far from my thought as it was from that of the noble Earl—to introduce or to carry any measure the effect of which should be to direct penal Consequences against the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion. I feel, and those who have thought with me feel, that such a measure might be necessary under the circumstances of that insult which has been offered to the Crown and to the people of this country, to pass some enactment vindicating the honour of the Crown and the independence of the country. I nevertheless think we ought to continue and tolerate the Roman Catholic religion, and that to interfere with its exercise by enactment would be a gross injustice and absurdity, and attended with the worst of consequences. I will not now enter into the provisions of that Bill; but I will say that the ground upon which it was introduced was simply that of protecting this country against foreign influence, that foreign influence making use of the Roman Catholic religion as an instrument; and the intention with which—I am not saying whether properly executed or not—but the intention with which the measure was introduced was to protect the Protestant and Roman Catholics—the Protestant laity and Roman Catholic laity—against intervention on the part of the Pope which had been shown to be mischievous and dangerous before, and might be mischievous and dangerous again. That is the distinction I wish to make; far from having at any time wished to debar persons professing the Roman Catholic religion in England or in Ireland from any of their privileges, or any of those powers which are necessary to that exercise, I shall feel it my duty at all times to facilitate that exercise, and to protect that religion; but, at the same time that I do this, I feel it is a duty incumbent on the Crown and Parliament to defend the prerogative
1028
of the Crown when that is openly attacked, and to maintain the independence of the country from any foreign authority, dominion, or influence whatever. Whenever a discussion on that subject shall take place, I wish it should take place with that protest on my part of what I am sure was the object of the late Government and of a great majority of both Houses of Parliament—to resist an insult on the Crown, and in no way to interfere with the exercise of religion; and I may state here, that independently of that disposition which my noble Friend late at the head of the Government naturally felt in his intercourse with the noble Earl and his right hon. Friend on this subject, he was prepared, independently of that wish, to make such alteration in that Bill which, while it attained its object of a distinct declaration against that foreign invasion, should at the same time remove any misapprehension which might possibly be entertained in this country or in Ireland, as to its possible effect on the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion and the full enjoyment of every Roman Catholic privilege by those authorities by whom alone the Roman Catholic religion can be carried on. I do not wish to go into the various topics to which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) has referred; but my noble Friend near me reminds me of one point upon which it is necessary to correct a misapprehension, a misbelief rather, on the part of the noble Lord. The noble Lord said, there was strong reason to suppose that, independently of the want of support of the other House of Parliament, other considerations had prevailed with the late advisers of Her Majesty in the course they had taken of resigning. I beg to say it was entirely owing to that want of support, as evinced, not upon one occasion, or of an accidental vote which took place at an early hour in another House—it was a general absence of that support in the other House, and no difference of opinion amongst ourselves, which induced us to take that course.
LORD STANLEY: What I said was, I could not divest myself of the opinion that, independently of the two circumstances referred to, namely—the smallness of the majority on Mr. Disraeli's Motion, and the subsequent defeat on Mr. Locke Ring's Motion, there were other questions upon which the difficulties were so great—the fear of opposition from their own supporters was so great, that, independently of those two questions of Papal Aggression and the

1029
Budget, it had largely entered into their consideration in inducing the noble Lord to rfisign—an event that took place so suddenly, that, if I am not mistaken, the noble Marquess was Out of town at the time; the noble Earl hear him, if I am not mistaken, received the information while he was in the City that the Cabinet of which he was a Member no longer existed; and the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal, although a near relative of the noble Lord, was as little acquainted with the intention of the Cabinet as he was with the Pope's intention, and that the noble Lord, when he wrote to the Queen announcing his intention to resign, had not consulted his noble relative.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEstated that he was out of town at the time referred to by the noble Lord.
House adjourned to Friday next.