ON CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY.*

JANUARY 29, 1840.

Ir is possible, Sir, that the House may imagine I rise under some little feeling of irritation, to reply to the personalities and accusations of the right hon. Baronet [Sir J. Graham]. I shall indulge in neither. It would be easy to reply to them-to recriminate would be still easier. Were I alone personally considered, I should think either course unworthy of me. I know that egotism in this House is always unpopular; on this occasion it would be singularly unseasonable. If ever I am under the necessity of addressing this House on matters which concern myself, I hope it shall be on some occasion when the dearest interests of the empire are not staked on the event of our debate. I do rise, Sir, to address you under feelings of deep anxiety, but in that anxiety there is not, if I know my own heart, any mixture of selfish feeling. I do feel, indeed, with the most intense conviction, that in pleading for the Government to which I belong, I am pleading for the deepest interests of the Commonwealth-for the reformation of abuses, and for the preservation of august and venerable institutions. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the first Cabinet Minister who, when the question is, whether the Government be or be not worthy of confidence, offers himself in debate, will find some portion of that generosity and good feeling which once distinguished English gentlemen. But be this as it may, my voice shall be heard. I was saying that I am pleading, not only for the preservation of our institutions, but for liberty and order, for justice administered in mercy, for equal laws,

* Hansard, 3d Series, vol. li. p. 815-835

for the rights of conscience, and for the real union of Great Britain and Ireland. Sir, I wish first to address myself not to any matter relating to myself alone, but to those parts of the subject with which my name is bound up in some degree with the character of the Government to which I belong. My opinions are favourable to secret voting. The opinions of my noble Friend (Lord John Russell) are in favour of open voting. Notwithstanding, we meet as Members of one Government. This has been made a topic of charge against the Government by every Gentleman who has addressed the House, from the hon. Baronet who opened the debate, down to the right hon. Baronet who spoke last. Now, Sir, I say in the first place, that if on account of this difference of opinion we shall be considered by the House unworthy of its confidence, then no Government for many years has been worthy, is worthy, of the House of Commons: for the Government of Mr. Pitt, the Government of Mr. Fox, the Government of Lord Liverpool, the Government of Mr. Canning, the Government of the Duke of Wellington, have all had open questions on subjects of the greatest moment. I say that the question of Parliamentary Reform was an open question with the Government of Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt, holding opinions in favour of that question, brought into the Cabinet Lord Grenville, who did not. Mr. Pitt was opposed to the slave trade. Mr. Dundas, a defender of it, was a Member of his Government. I say Mr. Fox, in the same manner, in his Cabinets of 1782 and 1806, had open questions of similar importance; and I say that the Governments of Lord Liverpool, Mr. Canning, and the Duke of Wellington, left, as an open question, Catholic Emancipation; which, closely connected as it was with the executive Administration, was, perhaps, one of the last questions which should ever have been left an open one by any Government. But to take still more important ground, and to come to a question which more nearly interests us-suppose you dismiss the present Government, on what principle do you mean to constitute an Ad

ministration composed of hon. Gentlemen opposite? Is it proposed by you to leave the privileges of this House an open question? Is it intended that your proposed Government should consist of those amongst you who declare themselves favourable to our privileges? Will it be said, that the question of privilege is of less importance than the question of the ballot? It is from the question of privilege that the question of the ballot, and all similar questions, derive their importance. And of what consequence is the mode in which you are elected, if, when you meet, you do not possess the privileges necessary for your efficiency as a branch of the Legislature? Is anything more clear than that, if an address (which is likely) were presented to the Crown on the subject of our privileges, you could never agree as to the answer to be given to it? Why, can any question be more important than that which should determine in what relation we stand to our constituents in the Courts of Judicature, and to the other branches of the Legislature? And, on the other hand, what is more monstrous (if we take the view of those opposed to our privileges) than that we should assert our privileges by attacking the liberty of the subject, by infringing on the functions of the courts where her Majesty dispenses the law, and committing to prison persons guilty only of the crime of appealing to the laws of their country? Can you conceive anything more absurd than the Prime Minister, over night, sending men to prison, to whom his law officers and supporters pay complimentary visits in the morning? I seriously believe that the differences of opinion on the other side on the question of privilege would, if a Ministry were formed from that quarter, produce, practically, more inconvenience in a week, than leaving the ballot an open question is likely to produce in ten years. The right hon. Baronet asks in what does the present Government differ from the Chartists? One Member of the present Government has, it is true, declared himself favourable to the ballot. I objected to the use of the word pledged; for I never gave any constituent body a pledge.

It is alleged too, that because I maintained that a 107. house being considered a sufficient proof of a man's stake in the country to fit him to be a voter, it was not desirable his locality should decide upon his right of voting-for this reason, I stand exactly in the same position as those who would abolish all pecuniary qualification. I cannot see, however, in what way I admit, in the least, the doctrine of those who would abolish all qualification whatever, by expressing a desire to see the present 107. franchise extended. In my opinion, a pecuniary qualification is indispensably necessary to the safety of the empire. In my opinion the 107. qualification has never proved too high; and supposing society to continue in its progress-supposing education to continue, and the distribution of property, and the value of money to remain as they are, if I can foresee anything in my public conduct, I shall abide by the opinion which I have just expressed as to the question of the franchise. This is my answer to the right hon. Baronet, and if it does not convey to him a proof that my opinions are different from those of the Chartists on this subject, his conception of their doctrines differs very widely from mine. I come to that which, through the whole debate, has formed the principal subject of observation; for it must be clear, that it is not on the conduct of Commissioner Lin, or of Captain Elliot, or on the hostilities on the river La Plata, or on any circumstance of this kind, that the result of this debate must turn. The main argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite, used by the hon. Baronet who opened the debate, repeated by his seconder, and constituting the substance of every speech which has been delivered, amounts to this :-"The country is in an unsatisfactory state-there is great turbulence-there is great disposition to extensive political change-and at the bottom of all lies the agitating policy of those Whigs. They raised themselves to power by means of agitation-they strengthened themselves in favour by means of agitation-they carried the Reform Bill by means of agitation-and we are now paying the fruits of their acts. All this

Chartism is but the effect of their conduct; and it is evident that from those who have caused the evil you cannot expect the remedy. We ought to dismiss them, and seek others who, never having excited the people to turbulence, will command the confidence of the country." I don't know whether I have stated it correctly, but this, as nearly as I could collect, is the substance of what has been urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now, I might fellow the example set by my right hon. Friend (the Judge Advocate) in his most noble and eloquent speech, and content myself with stating that this agitation belonged principally to the Government of Lord Grey. Of that Government, the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, and the right hon. Member for Pembroke were Members. I might say "they were then distinguished Members of this House. To them I leave the task of exculpation-to them I leave it to defend agitation-to them I leave it to decide on what principle, and to what extent, they shared in such means of carrying public questions." In spite of that challenge which my right hon. Friend gave the right hon. Baronet, he gives no explanation, but contents himself with the simple confession-" I liked the Reform Bill—I agitated for it. I was carried I admit far beyond prudence, and just on the verge of the law." Is it possible that any gentleman possessing only a very small part of the foresight of the right hon. Gentleman should not perceive, that as soon as this defence is admitted, this consequence must of necessity followthat the only question is, whether the measures to be agitated for are good in themselves, and not whether agitation itself be good or bad. The right hon. Baronet admits, then, that agitation itself is a proper and legitimate mode of carrying any measure that is good. When the right hon. Baronet comes forward to charge the present Government with agitation, and directs his reproaches against no member of that Government more than myself, I confess I feel some inclination to remonstrate with the right hon. Gentleman for want of generosity: for my interest in this question is small indeed,