Sitting of 27 December 1852

Preamble
MINUTES.] NEW WRITS.—For London, v. Lord John Russell, Secretary of State; Tiverton, v. Viscount Palmerston, Secretary of State Oxford University, v. Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Wilts (Southern Division), v. Right Hon. Sidney Herbert, Secretary at War; Carlisle, v. Right Hon. Sir James Robert George Graham, baronet, First Lord of the Admiralty; Halifax,!). Right Hon. Sir Charles Wood, baronet, President of the Board of Control; Southwark, v. Sir William Molesworth, baronet, Chief Commissioner of Works; Leeds, v. Right Hon. Matthew Talbot Baines, President of Poor Law Board; Nottingham, v. Right Hon. Edward Strutt, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; Cavan, v. Right Hon. Sir John Young, baronet, Chief Secretary for Ireland; Marlborough, v. Lord Ernest Bruce, Vice-Chamberlain of the
1742
Household; Scarborough, v. Earl of Mulgrave, Treasurer of the Household; Hertford, v. Hon, William Francis Cowper, Lord of the Admiralty; Morpeth, v. Hon. Edward George Granville Howard, Manor of Northstead.
House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths, — The Earl of Craven.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, in rising to move the adjournment of the House, it is my duty, as it is my desire, to give your Lordships the requisite information respecting the recent construction of Her Majesty's. Government, and to indicate, though very briefly, the principles and general policy upon which we propose to act. My Lords, I believe it has been the usual course for men who have been placed in the situation in which I have now the honour to stand, to profess the diffidence and reluctance with which they have undertaken the task imposed upon them. I doubt not they have done so with perfect truthfulness, and sincerity; but if that has been the case with others, your Lordships may easily imagine how much more largely I participate in those feelings. Your Lordships must be aware that I have taken little part in the proceedings of this House, except upon such occasions as were necessarily connected with the departments in which I have had the honour to hold
1722
office; and your Lordships may readily believe that my tastes, habits, and pursuits, have lain in another way. Arrived, too, at the very verge of that period which has been assigned to human life, it may well be supposed that other thoughts and other aspirations might have more properly been my choice. Nevertheless, I have felt it to be my duty to obey the commands of my Sovereign. My Lords, before describing the proceedings which have recently taken place, I wish to advert to a circumstance which I understand occurred a few days back in this House; when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) at a time and upon an occasion not altogether usual, accused me and those who acted with me of having entered into a species of combination or conspiracy to overthrow his Government. My Lords, I believe the accusation was answered at the time by my noble Friend, the noble Duke near me (the Duke of Newcastle). Nevertheless, I wish to add that my share in such a conspiracy was not for the purpose of ejecting the noble Earl from office, but for the purpose of keeping him in office. When it appeared, from the ambiguous and uncertain nature of an important paragraph in Her Majesty's Speech, that it was indispensably necessary that some Resolution should be moved, or some declaration made, of the advantages of free trade, my only anxiety was that the terms of that Resolution should be such as the noble Lords opposite and their Colleagues might adopt consistently with their own declarations, and without doing violence to their own feelings. Those terms were framed and adopted; and, singularly enough, they had the effect intended by those who prepared them—namely, that of enabling the noble Lords to continue to hold the offices which they then held; and, by the assistance and the votes of the very conspirators themselves, they were so enabled to continue to hold those offices. My Lords, if any further evidence is required of the nature of that conspiracy, I may state that, precisely at that time, I had myself taken measures to engage a residence at Nice, with the firm determination of passing a few winter months upon the shores of the Mediterranean. So much for the conspiracy. My Lords, upon Saturday week, after the division of the previous Thursday night, in the House of Commons upon the Budget, and the resignation of the noble Earl and his Colleagues, I received a message from

1723
the Queen desiring my attendance at the Isle of Wight, and informing me at the same time that Her Majesty had been pleased to summon my noble Friend the noble Marquess near me (the Marquess of Lansdowne) to attend at the same time and place. Upon communication with the noble Marquess I found that, in consequence of indisposition, he was unable at that time to leave his house. I therefore thought it incumbent upon me to wait Her Majesty's further commands. I received them upon the following day; and, my Lords, I confess it appeared to me that the time had arrived when it was possible for men whose political differences the course of events and recent legislation had almost, if not altogether, effaced or removed, and whose personal respect and friendship had never been interrupted—I say I thought that the time had arrived when it was possible for those persons to act together in the public service. I thought that probably the time had come when this country was tired of distinctions without differences, and which had no real effect upon the principles of the policy to be carried out. My Lords, it appeared to me that if my noble Friend the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) should entertain the same views and the same opinions, I might attempt to undertake the task which had been imposed upon me, but which, without his aid, I should have attempted in vain. I have neither the youth, strength, or ability, requisite for the purpose. But the day before I went to the Isle of Wight, having had an interview with my noble Friend, I ascertained that his sentiments were entirely in conformity with my own; and I therefore had no difficulty in assuring Her Majesty that I would endeavour to comply with the command which She was pleased to lay upon me. My Lords, upon my return from the Isle of Wight, I lost no time in endeavouring to fulfil the injunctions of Her Majesty; I do not say that that was attended with no difficulty; but this I will say, that I found in every quarter the greatest desire to lay aside all personal views and objects, and cordially to unite as far as possible in the promotion of that policy which we believe to be essential to the welfare of the country. My Lords, I have succeeded in preparing a list for Her Majesty's approval, which has been fortunate enough to receive the approbation of the Queen, and which now stands for the judgment of the country. The noble Earl stated, I believe, that
1724
he thought I might have done this in twenty-four hours. I have taken a week; and I can assure him that I have found that period not at all too much. My Lords, in proceeding now very briefly to touch upon different political points connected with the objects and policy of Her Majesty's Ministers, I need not detain your Lordships at any length upon our relation with foreign Powers. The truth is, my Lords, that for the last thirty years the principles of the foreign policy of this country have never varied. There may have been differences in the execution, according to the different hands intrusted with the direction of that policy; hut the foundation of the foreign policy of this country has, I repeat, for the last thirty years been the same. It has been marked by a respect due to all independent States, a desire to abstain as much as possible from the internal affairs of other countries, an. assertion of our own honour and interests, and, above all, an earnest desire to secure the general peace of Europe by all such means as were practicable and at our disposal. I do not say that differences may not have existed, or that sympathies may not have been excited on behalf of certain States in their endeavours to promote constitutional reforms and to obtain constitutional government; but the principle of our policy has always been to respect the independence, the entire independence, of other States, great or small, and not to interfere in their internal concerns. That will continue to be the case; and I trust that we shall still retain the friendship and good will of all foreign countries, whatever the nature of their government or constitution. If ever it should be the fate of this country to be called upon to interfere in any matter foreign to ourselves, my earnest desire, my great hope is, that we shall never be called upon to act except to exercise the blessed office of the peacemaker. But, my Lords, earnestly as I desire to see the continuance of peace, and anxiously as I wish to promote it, at the same time I am by no means disposed to relax in those defensive preparations which have been undertaken recently, and which, perhaps, have been too long neglected; not that these preparations indicate any expectation of hostile proceedings from others—on the contrary, they are adopted in the interest of peace itself; and, as those preparations are essentially defensive, they ought not and cannot give umbrage to any Power whatsoever. But, my Lords, the great object of Her Majesty's

1725
present Government, the great characteristic of that Government, and the mission with which they are peculiarly entrusted, is the maintenance and the prudent extension of free trade, and the commercial and financial system established by the late Sir Robert Peel. My Lords, I am not going to enter into a discussion of the respective merits of direct or indirect taxation; it is obvious that in a revenue such as ours the union of both is indispensable, and it is to the just distribution and application of that principle that we look for the prosperity of the country. In our financial system, my Lords, a difficulty —a crisis, I would almost say—will necessarily arise, by the early cessation of a very large branch of the revenue. That must necessarily be supplied; and doubtless it will tax the ingenuity and ability of all those who are concerned in this undertaking to accomplish that great work according to the principles of justice and equity. My Lords, another matter to which I may refer, in which the country is deeply interested, and upon which a general expectation exists, is the extension of national education. This has become a want—a want which the country strongly desires to see supplied, and which has engaged the attention of all who have undertaken the direction of public affairs. I am old enough to remember the introduction into this country of the Bell and Lancaster system of education, and I well remember the apprehensions it excited, and the opposition it encountered; but by degrees these have ceased, and the only difference among us now is, not whether or no education shall be general and universal, but as to the mode in which that end can best be effected. I admit that the subject is full of difficulty, and attended with very grave considerations. It is undoubtedly my great desire, recognising as I do the vital importance of the religious element in all education, to see the due influence of the Church exercised in matters of this kind, consistently with that perfect right and freedom which all men are entitled to expect in such matters in this country, and which it has long been our pride to acknowledge. My Lords, another want, and which I may say the people have now demanded, has been the progress of those law reforms which, introduced by the late Government, were taken up by the noble and learned Lord now on the woolsack (Lord St. Leonards), and prosecuted with so much vigour, ability, and success in his hands. This is a matter
1726
that must still be pursued, and it is no doubt one that will meet with the concurrence of your Lordships, and finally will give that satisfaction to the public which they have a right to receive. It is an object which we have all had in view, but which until this time we have not been able to accomplish. My Lords, by the extension of education, and by the progress of law reform, I trust the social condition of this country will be materially improved; and that by the progress which it will be our endeavour to make in all that concerns the welfare and happiness of the country— by cautious and steady progress—we hope that both the intellectual and material condition of the people will be improved. My Lords, these reforms will not exclude amendments of our representative system —not rashly or hastily undertaken, but by safe, well-considered measures. It can, I think, hardly be denied by any man that some amendment of this system is required, and unquestionably the events of the last election have not been such as to render any man more enamoured of the system which at present exits. My Lords, the noble Earl referred, as I understand, to the existence of a Conservative Government, and expressed some surprise and curiosity to learn how I should be able to carry on the service of the Crown surrounded by those persons with whom I was likely to be associated. My Lords, I declare to the noble Earl that in my opinion no Government in this country is now possible except a Conservative Government; and to that I add another declaration, which I take to be as indubitably true, that no Government in this country is now possible except a Liberal Government. The truth is that these terms have no definite meaning. I never should have thought of approaching my noble Friend the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell), unless I had thought he was Conservative; and I am sure he never would have associated himself with me unless he had thought that I was Liberal. My Lords, these terms it may be convenient to keep up for the sake of party elections; but the country is sick of these distinctions, which have no real meaning, and which prevent men from acting together who are able to perform good service to the Crown and to the country. I trust, therefore, that in the just acceptation of the word, whatever the measures proposed by the present Government may be, they will be Conservative measures as well as

1727
Liberal, for I consider both qualities to be essentially necessary. My Lords, the noble Earl also referred to the necessity of resisting the encroachment of democracy. I am quite ready to unite with him in resisting the encroachment of democracy, or any other encroachment of an illegal character; but I am at a loss to see where these encroachments exist. I look in vain for any such indications at the present moment. I should say, on the contrary, I never recollect this country more tranquil, more contented, less abounding in subjects of danger and alarm, than at the present moment; and this prosperity, contentment, and happiness I believe to be mainly owing to the system the late Sir Robert Peel established, and which it is our business to uphold and to extend. No doubt, speculative men have at all times in this country, in their closets, come to the conclusion that a democratic form of government may be preferable to a monarchical; but these are not men who subvert States, and are therefore not dangerous in a state of society like ours. That there must always be men reckless, violent, and unprincipled, ready for any excess and outrage, is but too true; but, at the same time, there is less reason to entertain such apprehensions at the present moment than I ever recollent in the course of my life. I have great confidence in the people of this country; and I do believe the imputation, and even the existence of alarm at this moment, is almost a libel on the people. My Lords, I regret to have been informed that the noble Earl spoke in a tone which indicated hostility to Her Majesty's Government. I regret it deeply, because I well know the vast powers of the noble Earl. I am well aware of all that he is able to do; but I believe that we have a good cause, and I trust, if it can only be made manifest that we are sincerely animated by a real desire to promote the welfare of the great body of the people, we Shall have the support of the country, as I am sure we shall have the approbation of our own consciences. My Lords, I beg to move that this House at its rising do adjourn until Thursday, the 10th of February.
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, so much do I concur in what the noble Earl has stated, and so little is there in the programme of his Government, so far as he has explained it to-night, with which I, for one, feel I have any cause to complain; that I should hardly have thought it incumbent upon me to say a single word,
1728
had not the noble Earl alluded to me personally in a manner which renders it impossible for me to remain silent. I would not have risen at all on this occasion if the noble Earl had not referred to the circumstances which occurred the other evening in a manner which makes it impossible for me to abstain from some remark, and in a manner, also, which convinces me that on this point the noble Earl must have been greatly misinformed. The noble Earl has spoken of the "hostility to the present Government" which I indicated on that occasion. I can assure the noble Earl that any one who has led him to believe that I expressed "hostility" towards his Government has greatly misinformed him. I said, on the contrary—what I am sure your Lordships will forgive me for repeating, and though I am sure the noble Earl will believe that I could have said nothing inconsistent with the high respect I have ever entertained for his many estimable qualities—I stated that at that moment I was anxious to forbear from a single expression, in commenting on that which had taken place, which could in the slightest degree raise a controversy, or prejudge what was at issue; and I promised the noble Earl—and I trust there was nothing inconsistent with my respect for him in so qualifying that promise—that if his policy should be based upon those principles which I believed he held in common with myself—although from the associations with which he was surrounding himself, I necessarily had some doubts—he might rely upon receiving from me, and from my friends, if not a cordial at all events a sincere and a conscientious support: that he should meet from us more forbearance than had been exhibited to us; and that he might rely on not being met, on our part, by any factious opposition or unprincipled combination. These were the sentiments which I expressed on that occasion, and these are the sentiments which I am happy to have an opportunity of repeating. I felt, and I feel, no hostility to the noble Earl personally—I am sure that he himself would never suspect me of it; and on public grounds I did not feel, and do not feel, what can be called hostility to his Administration; I shall be rejoiced to find him enabled to conduct the Government on principles such as will permit me to give him my support. The noble Earl has also used—not once or twice, but five, or, six times—the term, as proceeding from me,

1729
Of "conspiracy," representing that I had alleged that a "conspiracy" had been entered into against the late Government. My Lords, no such expression fell from my lips; to the best of my judgment, to my belief and conviction, I used no such phrase. What I stated then I hope your Lordships will not think I am really wasting your time if I state again in his presence—because I am convinced, notwithstanding some denials with which my statements have been met, that to the extent to which my statement then went I stated facts, and not, as they have been represented to be, mere matters of fiction and surmise. I said that I felt it was incumbent on me on that occasion to state and to prove to your Lordships that I did not lightly and without cause throw up the heavy responsibility which had devolved on me in consequence of my acceptance of office; for my belief was that as great a responsibility attached to the lightly surrendering office as could possibly attach to the lightly accepting it; and I stated that, if we had been defeated on any casual or fortuitous question, or upon any matter of minor importance, I should not have considered myself justified in resigning office, however much I might have felt that a Government under such circumstances would to a certain extent be disabled from performing its duty in the manner which would be desirable. I stated what was the position of the House of Commons at the close of the last general election; and I showed that the position of that House was such, that although Her Majesty's late Government had the confidence of by far the largest party in it, exceeding numerically every other separate party, yet that, not possessing the confidence of a full moiety of the House, it was necessarily in the power of all the other parties, by combining on a vote, to put the Government at any time in a minority, which would render the resignation of the Government desirable, if not imperative; and I went on to state—and I am sorry that I should have to repeat this—that from the period of the general election down to this time, I had seen indications of a concert among different parties in opposition to the Government, such as I could not avoid seeing was a determination on their part to produce such a result. After what has been said by the noble Earl this evening, I, of course, acquit him of having been actuated by that motive, which I attributed generally to that concert of parties. But
1730
I am sure the noble Earl will forgive me, and that your Lordships will not think I am needlessly wasting your time, if I venture to point out the grounds on which I formed that opinion—with which I did not trouble your Lordships on the former occasion, and which I would not state now had not the noble Earl thought fit to refer so broadly to what passed. Shortly before the general election, when it was known that a general election was immediately impending, various addresses were of course issued to various constituencies by Gentlemen representing all those varieties of opinion, between which I cannot concur with the noble Earl in thinking there was a distinction without a difference; and among others a right hon. Baronet, with whom for some years I had the pleasure and the honour of living on terms of the greatest intimacy and friendship—a right hon. Baronet, who had formerly, in his early youth, been the representative of the very radical constituency of Carlisle, and having subsequently represented various places, and been connected with distinct constituencies in the intervals, returned at last to his former constituents at Carlisle, confessed the political infidelities of which he had been guilty—deviating at one time into Whiggism, and at another into Conservatism — acknowledged the errors of which he had been guilty—and said that he returned to the bosom of his old constituency as to the old love of his Radical days. I think that the noble Earl will admit that between that right hon. Baronet and us there was a difference of opinion, not without a very great and very broad distinction. In addressing his constituents, referring to a charge at that time made against Her Majesty's late Government, that they were a Government without principles, and that the language used by their supporters at different places was very discordant and irreconcileable, the right hon. Baronet said that he would place the issue the country was called on to decide on one single and simple ground. Confidence, he said, had been claimed for the Government of the Earl of Derby; and he would place the issue on a footing equally clear— namely, that of opposition to the Government of the Earl of Derby. That was the question on which the right hon. Baronet invited all classes of persons to join issue, and that was the single principle which that right Baronet avowed would govern his conduct. He stated that for thirty-four years his life been before the

1731
public—he stated what he was: an ardent reformer, a free-trader, a friend to the Church, and other things which I don't remember; but I do remember that he finished by saying—this he confessed to— that he was a decided opponent to Lord Derby's Government. I hope, therefore, I am not wronging the right hon. Baronet —after this, his own, declaration—still belonging, as I understood him to say, to the Conservative ranks, and communicating, as I know, with Gentlemen professing Conservative opinions—when agreement with other sections of the House was necessary to place the Government in a minority—I hope I am not assuming too much when I say I could not reckon largely on the friendship or forbearance of that right hon. Baronet. We have heard the whole course of proceeding which took place at the commencement of the Session —and it is not from the gossip of clubs, which I do not frequent, and it is not from the tittle-tattle of private conversation, which I will not repeat, but from the declarations and statements made in his place in Parliament by that right hon. Gentleman himself, that I inferred, and that I do infer, not a conspiracy, but a concert between different persons and parties for the purpose, at the commencement of the Session, of placing the late Government in a minority. That is the whole extent of the statement I made on a former occasion— that from the commencement of the Session I saw that different parties, including among them Gentlemen of "Conservative" opinions, as they professed, were concerting together for the purpose of putting the late Government in a minority. The noble Earl says that there was no such concert, and that as far as he was concerned there was no such object; and I believe all that the noble Earl states with regard to himself. But the facts as to others are plain. The right hon. Baronet to whom I have been referring states that he arrived in town at a late hour of the evening previous to the delivery of the Queen's Speech; and that he immediately called on the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) with whom, he said, he was in the habit of having unreserved and friendly communications on political matters. I do not mean, in quoting this, to identify the noble Earl with all the political views and opinions of the right hon. Baronet; least of all do I desire to identify the noble Earl with the right hon. Baronet's declaration at Carlisle—for the differences may suggest to the noble
1732
Earl that there may be some distinctions in political matters even between men sitting in the same Cabinet. The right hon. Baronet's statement, however, is that he called on the noble Earl, and consulted him as to the course he should pursue with regard to that paragraph in the Queen's Speech which referred to the commercial policy of the country. The right hon. Baronet, I am bound to say, seems to have displayed great activity on the occasion; for, though arriving in town late at night, he yet had an opportunity, before two o'clock on the following day, of communicating with and ascertaining the sentiments of the noble Earl and his Friends, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London and his Friends, his "hon. Friend," as he called him, the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) and his Friends, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) and his Friends. With all these different persons and parties the right hon. Baronet consulted and concerted on the course to be pursued with regard to an amendment or no amendment on the Address to the Queen's Speech, the introduction or the non-introduction of a substantive Motion, recording the opinion of Parliament in favour of free trade. It was, it appears, finally agreed that there should be no amendment on the Address; and the hon. Members for the West Riding and Manchester, and the followers of those Gentlemen, although they would have preferred an amendment, yielded to the objections of those with whom for the time they were co-operating, and abstained from bringing forward any amendment, lest, if urged on them, we are told, discord and division might be thrown into the ranks of the Opposition. The Speech from the Throne was delivered; and there was a paragraph in that Speech, touching on the national commercial policy, which the noble Earl has told us was in itself ambiguous. I do not agree in that interpretation; but I think the noble Earl will admit that if there was any ambiguity in that paragraph, the declaration which I made in this, and the declaration which was made in the other House of Parliament by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, should have removed and did remove any possible doubt as to the intentions, in this direction, of Her Majesty's Government. That explanation, however, was not waited for in the House of Commons; for after the Mover and Seconder had made their remarks in urging the Address

1733
in answer to the Speech from the Throne, we have it on the declaration of the right hon. Baronet, that Mr. Villiers —I may mention him by name, as he is not a Member of this House—stepped across to him and asked his advice and his counsel whether he should or should not give notice of a substantive Motion on the subject of free trade; and the right hon. Baronet gave the advice—which was, that Mr. Villiers should bring forward a substantive Motion; and, in consequence, the requisite notice was immediately given by Mr. Villiers. The notice was given in very general terms; and it was not until late in the following week—not, indeed, until within three or four days of the day fixed for debating the Motion—that the precise terms of the Motion were put on record. Of course, Mr. Villiers being the person who gave notice of that Motion, if there was no concert with other parties, Mr. Villiers was the person by whom that Motion was framed, and framed, of course, acting on his own principles and his own views, without consulting others, and least of all with any of the Conservative Members of the House of Commons. But no; the Motion was not prepared by Mr. Villiers, but by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, who tells us that he took great pains in framing it, that he considered himself responsible for it, and that he took particular pains in respect of its language. Having framed that Motion, what was the next step of the right hon. Baronet? To consult as to the language of the Motion with the noble Lord the Member for the City of London; and having obtained the sanction of the noble Lord to what the right hon. Baronet had himself drawn up, with the adoption of one amendment, which neither added to nor took away from the strength of the original Resolution, the right hon. Baronet next proceeded to the Conservative section of his friends in the House of Commons—those who had been his Colleagues in Sir Robert Peel's Government—to consult with them how far they would concur in the terms proposed by himself and adopted by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. Having explained that he had gone to these different parties, the right hon. Baronet stopped short in his revelations; and he has not told the House of Commons what was the cause—on what ground it was— that, having taken these great pains in shaping his Resolution, and having obtained the concurrence of the noble Lord the
1734
Member for the City of London on one side, and of the Colleagues of Sir Robert Peel on the other side, that Resolution was not proposed in the House of Commons, and why another Resolution was substituted for it. I am here speaking of facts. At what time the alteration was made I know not; but that when a communication was made by the right hon. Baronet to the Gentleman in whose hands the Motion had been originally placed, there can be no manner of doubt that the friends of that Gentleman insisted on the insertion of certain words which, in their judgment—and they were quite right—rendered it perfectly impossible for the Government to accede to the Motion. But these words were so inserted, and to those new words the consent was given of the other parties with whom the right hon. Baronet was in this matter acting. Now I have said nothing of "conspiracy"—I may have used the word "combination;" but I know not what is the meaning of words or terms if the negotiations I have detailed, and which I have detailed on the authority of the right hon. Baronet himself, did not mean and imply a concert hostile to the Government, between three totally different parties in the House of Commons, one of those parties professing Conservative opinions, and, by the mouth of the noble Earl, declaring that they had no differences of opinion with Her Majesty's late Government, except on one point. The noble Earl says the terms of the Resolution in question were studiously framed by its authors, not for the purpose of embarrassing —far from it—not for the purpose of ejecting, and not for the purpose of putting a difficulty in the way of Government—but for the purpose of framing such words, as, while asserting the principles of the framers, might, at the same time, obtain the concurrence of the late Government. My Lords, I give the noble Earl implicit credit for the sincerity of his declaration; but I cannot help saying, that if it were only the object of those Gentlemen to obtain the recognition of a principle in such a manner and in such terms as the late Government would consent to, it is singular that before giving notice of the Motion, the only party whom those Gentlemen did not consult were the Members of the Government themselves—that every other party except the Government were consulted as to the terms of the Motion, which it appears was to be proposed, with the view of obtaining the concurrence of the Go-

1735
vernment. I do not say that to conceal as long as possible the terms of such a Motion from the Government was not good policy in an united Opposition; but I do say, that to bring forward a Motion professing to avow a principle which the Government had acknowledged its readiness to recognise, to abstain from communicating the terms of that Resolution to the Government, and then to say that their only object was to obtain the assent of the Government to their proposition, was a course inconsistent with friendly professions; was not consistent with any concert with the Government; hut was consistent, and could be consistent only, with a concert between all the other sections of the House of Commons for the purpose of embarrassing the Government. But, again, why was it, I ask, if these Gentlemen were themselves satisfied with the words in which their Resolution was framed, and if their only object was what they professed, that they subsequently consented to alter the terms and to give up their Resolution altogether, in fact, for the purpose of adopting another Resolution framed by an extreme party in the House —and framed for the express purpose of rendering it impossible that the Government could accede to it? The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle), contradicted me the other night as to the facts I was alleging; but he will not, I think, deny, that although the party with whom he was then acting, and with whom he is acting, had consented to the Resolution as framed by the right hon. Baronet, and nearly identical with that which the Government finally accepted; yet that this Resolution in the first instance was not put forward by them at all, and that they had come to a decision, and made that decision pretty publicly known, that if only two Resolutions were to be divided on, the one being that of Mr. Villiers, and the other the Amendment of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were prepared to give their support and their votes for the Motion and against the Amendment. These are the facts of the case as I find it; and, indeed, the noble Duke himself will not pretend that he entered the walls of Parliament during the present Session with any friendly feelings towards the Government — he will not pretend that he was not looking forward to an early opportunity of putting the Government in a minority—he will not pretend that he did not publicly express—not in
1736
his place in Parliament, but in a manner amounting to publicity—I mean that he made no secret of his desire—to find an early opportunity of ejecting the Government, and that, before the announcement of the Budget, he had declared his strong opinion that the Budget would afford a favourable opportunity of effecting his great object. This the noble Duke will not deny; and no one can deny that there was that concert between different parties as to the adoption of the Resolutions of Mr. Villiers, and that, when it was agreed to by those different parties, it was known and foreseen that such a Resolution could not have the assent of the Government. I have now, my Lords, stated those facts which induced me the other night to declare that, from the very commencement of the Session, I believed there was a concert between different parties for the purpose of defeating the Government. I can easily conceive that it might have been more convenient to some parties if Her Majesty's Government had not been quite so ready to confess defeat, and if they had submitted only after repeated hints, in order that their position might have been made more discreditable before retiring. I can perfectly believe that it was not the wish of some Gentlemen who acted together on the occasion I have referred to —and I am bound to believe it was not the wish of the noble Earl himself—that the late Government, previous to Christmas, should be compelled, because they were in a minority, to resign. I will not now enter into a discussion as to the merits or demerits of the Budget which was proposed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Earl has adverted, in the speech he has made this evening, to the necessity of considering the very important question which formed a material element in that financial scheme; and he has spoken on that subject in terms which lead me to hope and believe that some of his Colleagues have already reconsidered the extreme opinions which they expressed in the other House on the principle of the Budget, which they then stated they believed to involve a violation of faith with the public creditor, and to endanger the national honour. Sincerely do I hope that the noble Earl and his Colleagues, when they bring forward their own Budget, may be enabled to frame the renewed income tax on such a footing of justice—I cannot say of absolute and positive equity to all classes—but of jus-

1737
tice in its general arrangements—that they may be enabled so to diminish the present inequality as to induce the House of Commons to consent to the reimposition of that tax; for I can assure the noble Earl that no man is more desirous than I am to preserve inviolate the faith of the country, and to secure due supplies for the exigencies of the public service; and no man can be more entirely convinced than I am, that, without a renewal of the income tax, in some shape or other, neither the present nor any other Government can obtain the requisite funds for conducting the public service. I make these remarks with a very general application, and speaking only of the vague programme of the measures of the noble Earl, so far as he has yet developed them. I must, however, take occasion to protest against the language which the noble Earl has used, as applied to several of those who are now his Colleagues—that between them there is only a distinction without a difference—and that there are such immaterial points of difference between all parties as to make the country at last sick of seeing nominal separations between public men. The noble Earl must forgive me for saying that either on this or on a former occasion he has been greatly mistaken—that he is mistaken in respect to there being no difference between himself and his Colleagues—or that he was mistaken when he stated that between himself and me there was only a difference with respect to recent commercial legislation. I will not enter into a consideration of the personnel of his Cabinet; and I will not discuss the mutual concessions which may have been made of private and individual feelings. In a free country I know it is necessary for some extreme opinions to be conceded, and for Gentlemen acting together in a political party to consent to such suppressions or modifications of their own views as, without a violation of their principles, tend to the harmonious, safe, and successful action of the whole body. But when I am told that the present Cabinet comprises the names of all the most important men, the heads of all the principal parties in this country, then, I say, it seems to me that concession must have been carried to a very considerable length—to a degree, at which I cannot help doubting whether the advantage gained by temporary union, as Members of the same Government, may not be counterbalanced by the creation of a distrust in the public
1738
mind as to the principles on which that alliance is to be conducted. I must say I was astonished at the noble Earl when he stated that for the last thirty years the foreign policy of this country has substantially been the same. I quite concur in those views of foreign policy which the noble Earl has this evening developed. They are, I believe, precisely the same views which I expressed when first speaking for the late Government from the place which the noble Earl now occupies, and when I was fortunate enough to obtain the noble Earl's approval. But when I look back on the recent history—when I consider the antecedents of the noble Earl —and when I recollect the language in which the noble Earl commented on the system—not on incidental episodes, but on the system in which the foreign policy of the country was at one time conducted by statesmen who are now the Colleagues of the noble Earl, I must say that we are going very far indeed if we agree with the noble Earl now that there is only a distinction without a difference between the foreign policy of the present Government, and of the Government against whom the noble Earl, on the ground of its erroneous foreign policy, has so often, so ably, and so eloquently inveighed. The noble Earl has intimated to us that he intends and he desires to promote and to develop the national education; giving due weight to the authority and influence of the religious views of the country, but at the same time basing the system of national education upon equality and toleration. The idea is most praiseworthy; it is one in which I entirely concur. The difficulties in the way of carrying out the wish are great, as the noble Earl is evidently well aware; and I only hope and trust that the noble Earl may be enabled to surmount those difficulties, and to place before the country a plan of national education in which all parties may concur; and I express this hope because I agree with the noble Earl that in the extension of education—by which I mean education governed by religion, as I am sure the noble Earl means too—lies the best security for the social and political safety and prosperity of the Empire. The noble Earl also announces his desire to proceed on a system of administrative reform; and upon that again there can be no difference of opinion, and the noble Earl will not anticipate in that respect any opposition from me or from my friends—at all events, with regard to the principles—the

1739
details, of course, depending on the skill with which the measures may he constructed. The noble Earl also tells us that he intends to deal with the laws affecting the representation of the people. On that subject the noble Earl spoke in a tone somewhat oracular; for he said the noble Lord the Member for the City of London must be a Conservative, or he would not have joined that noble Lord in a Government; and that, on the other hand, he must be a Liberal, or the noble Lord would not have joined him. Perhaps he might have mentioned other Members of the Government on whom he might have depended for even a larger degree of liberality than characterised the noble Lord; but the antithesis was, perhaps, complete: and the noble Earl has contented himself with stating that his measure of Parliamentary Reform will be conservatively liberal, and liberally conservative, and that is all the intimation we have with regard to his future policy in reference to the representation of the people. I confess that it does not convey to my mind any very distinct idea, and I hardly think that it can be satisfactory to the country. The advantages to the noble Earl are obvious from this vagueness; for whatever his measure, he can say that he had described it. If it is extreme, and people complain that it goes too far, the noble Earl will say, "Well, did not I tell you I meant to be liberal;" and if other parties say "Oh, this is nothing at all— it is a distinction without a difference," the noble Earl can turn round on them and say, "Gentlemen, I told you at the outset I would be extremely Conservative." The noble Earl and his Colleagues, in fact, so far as they are pledged by his description as given this evening, can do what they like. They may go the length of the right hon. Baronet in the Cabinet, who is favourable to the consideration of the ballot; or they may make some paltry alteration in the constituencies, for which they would receive no thanks, and because it would be a useless, would he a mischievous change. My Lords, I say the existing system is not perfect; it is capable of amendment and improvement; hut everything depends upon whether the improvement be one in principle, on the animus with which the measure is introduced, and on the skill with which the plan is adapted to its object. Unless there be a clear benefit without corresponding danger, then I say the noble Earl and his Colleagues do not act wisely in entering on a field calculated
1740
to raise so much difficulty and apprehension, unless they clearly see a palpable and manifest advantage. The noble Earl has alluded to language of mine at various times, and which I repeat now, conveying my apprehension of the extension of the democratic principle in our constitution. The noble Earl says that he never knew the country more contented, or less disposed to listen to agitation, or more thoroughly satisfied with existing institutions than at present; and he says that he sees nothing like the prevalence of "democracy;" and that although there are some individuals who entertain visionary political schemes, he does not believe that the great body of the people sympathise in those schemes. I entirely concur with the noble Earl; I think the great body of the people do not concur in those schemes; and I believe that if they foresaw the possible consequences of such schemes on the Government, they would shrink from them and from their authors with horror. But when he asks me if the great mass of the people—those, I mean, who, in point of position and station, are very far below the classes now entitled to the franchise—are, from their intelligence and far-seeing, capable of well-judging the effects of alterations in our constitutional system, or of extensive and complicated political measures, then I say, confiding as I do fully in the good faith and in the loyalty of my countrymen, there is danger in entrusting with political power those who have too little—mark, not of intelligence, but—of acquired information, and too small a stake in the country, for them fairly and impartially to consider questions of political change. When I speak, therefore, of the spread of the democratic element in our constitution—and that is the phrase I have always used—1 do not, I say, impeach the loyalty of my countrymen, but I contend that, great as the influence of the House of Commons is at present, and great as it must be in the constitution of the country, generally, there is a serious danger of altering the character of the House of Commons by throwing too large a proportion of the representation of that body into the hands of the lower and less-informed classes of society. I cannot, however, anticipate opposition to the measure the noble Earl may bring forward; from his language it is at present impossible to surmise what the character of that measure may be. The noble Earl says that the proceedings of the recent general

1741
election convinced him that the present system is unsatisfactory. If he can find a remedy for the correction of those evils to which he refers—and let him observe that the remedy is not to be found in the mere extension of the franchise, for it is in the large constituencies chiefly that these evils have been perceived—then I say there is no one from whom he shall receive a more cordial support in applying that remedy, however stringent it may be, than from the man whom the noble Earl very erroneously supposes to be hostile to his Administration. I can only say, in conclusion, that I have no feeling, personal or public, hostile to the noble Earl. I cannot say, when I loot at the composition of his Government, that I entertain any confidence in it, for I have no conception of the principle upon which the combination has been brought about. But if the noble Earl is prepared, and has power in his own Cabinet, to act on those which I have hitherto believed to be his own principles, he may rely on it, not only that he will receive no evidence of hostility from me, but that it will be satisfactory to me to find that, under his auspices, the Government of this country can he safely, steadily, and constitutionally carried on, in the true Conservative sense of the word, not avoiding or shrinking from useful and necessary amendments, but strenuously and determinedly resisting organic changes, and firmly opposing any interference with the just principles of the constitution.
House adjourned to Thursday, the 10th of February nest.