Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

and of the press, or was Mr. Canning to become the reformer, the corporator, the "chartered libertine ?"

During the remaining part of the session, some of these questions were propounded, and the issue shewed, that those newly enlisted on the side of the government were not disposed to endanger its stability, now that they formed part of it, by pressing their own views on the notice of parliament. But, unless there was a total sacrifice of principle on one side or the other, it was evident that the admission of the opposition to the cabinet would multiply all the evils of a divided government. Catholic emancipation was the only topic on which the members of the former cabinet had openly differed: the new cabinet was formed expressly on the principle that that difference should continue; and to it would be added, by an admixture of Whig members, all those other topics, which, for twenty years had furnished them with themes of invective, and sometimes of personal abuse against their new master, and the party to which he belonged. At bottom, however, their support of him rested on a very plain principle. If they differed from Mr. Canning in these points, so did they likewise differ from his colleagues who had resigned, while they were further separated from the latter on the question of Catholic emancipation.

own.

They had thus one point of dissension less with the former than with the latter, and in a contest for power between the two parties, it was their interest to support that which approached nearest to their A negotiation was opened with lord Lansdowne, through lord Carlisle, who being connected by birth and marriage with the leading members of the Whig aristocracy, and by long habits of friendly intercourse with Mr. Canning, was in those respects, no less than by the moderation and respectability of his character, fitted to perform the office of a mediator. For some time, however, the Whigs exhibited a feigned, or a real reluctance, to take office. Whether it was that Mr. Canning, foreseeing the danger of such allies becoming masters, was reserved in his proposals, and not sufficiently liberal in his offers-or that the Whigs were unwilling to commit themselves, till the probable stability of the new minister had been put to some test, the negotiations did not lead to the immediate introduction of any of them into the cabinet. They agreed, however, to give Mr. Canning their support: and, as a pledge and symbol of their coalition, offices of considerable emolument, though of little direct political influence, were conferred on some of their adherents. Mr. Scarlett was knighted, and named Attorney-general.

CHAP. IV.

Meeting of Parliament after the Recess-Mr. Peel explains in the House of Commons the Reasons of his Resignation Statement of Mr. Canning-Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Brougham defend their Coalition with the Ministry-Explanations in the House of Lords by Lord Eldon, the Duke of Wellington, Lord Bathurst, Lord Westmorland, and Lord Melville, of the Reasons of their Resignations-Discussions in both Houses on the Formation of the New MinistryStrong Hostility expressed towards it in the House of LordsSpeech of Earl Grey-Opinions of His Majesty on the Catholic Question-Motions on the State of Ireland withdrawn-Motion for the Repeal of the Test Acts withdrawn-Motion on the Chancellor's Jurisdiction in Bankruptcy-Motion regarding the Stamp Duty on Cheap Publications-The Marquis of Lansdowne made Secretary of State.

WH

HEN the parliament re-assembled on the 1st of May,* the public eagerness was at its height to learn something of the causes, which had separated men

who so long had acted together in good and in evil report, and which had accomplished an union between parties and individuals whose contest had generally been

• When parliament met, after the recess, the new ministry was as follows:

......

THE CABINET.

PEERS.

...........in place of Lord Eldon.

Lord Chancellor .................... Lord Lyndhurst
Lord President ...................... Earl of Harrowby
Lord Privy Seal
....Duke of Portland
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster..Lord Bexley
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs..Viscount Dudley
Secretary of State for the Colonies Viscount Goderich (late?

Mr. Robinson .........................
COMMONERS.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Earl Bathurst.

Mr. Peel.

Ld. Liverpool, and Mr.

Robinson created Visc.
Goderich.

Lord Melville and the
other Lds. of the Adm.
the Duke of Wellington.
Duke of Montrose.
Duke of Dorset,
Mr. Goulburn.

(Sir John Copley created

Lord Lyndhurst.

Sir John Leach.

Sir Charles Wetherell,

The

a war ad internecionem. benches of the House of Commons displayed a juxta position of members which St. Stephen's chapel had not witnessed for twenty years, and which, if it had been predicted six weeks before, would have excited only laughter. Mr. Tierney and Mr. Brougham, sir Francis Burdett and sir Robert Wilson, were ranged on the ministerial side of the House, and were ranged there in support of Mr. Canning.

On the motion that a new writ should issue for the borough of Ashburton for the election of a member in place of Mr. S. Bourne, who had accepted, since the adjournment of the House, the office of one of his majesty's principal Secretaries of State, Mr. Peel said, that, as the motion was immediately connected with the succession to that office which he had recently held, he trusted the House would allow him the opportunity of explaining the grounds on which he had retired from the situation of Secretary of State. In the prospect of this opportunity he had abstained from resorting to any other mode of explaining the motives by which his conduct had been guided. During the three weeks which had elapsed since his resignation, his silence had been made the subject of many doubts and of much misconstruction; he had submitted to them in the prospect of vindicating his character before that House. He said-vindicate, for he could not conceive that a public man embarked in the public service, was entitled, on light or trivial grounds, to withdraw his assistance from the servants of the crown whose confidence he had previously obtained. The grounds, on which he had retired from

office, were simply these. For eighteen years, from the first moment of his public life, whether in office or out of office, he had constantly offered an uncompromising, but he trusted a temperate, fair, and constitutional resistance to the extension of political privileges to the Roman Catholics. His opposition was founded on principle. He thought that the continuance of those bars, which excluded the Catholics from the acquisition of political power, was necessary for the maintenance of the constitution, and the safety of the established church. Therefore it was, that he opposed their removal: and cherishing at this moment the same opinions he had always done, and having taken the active and prominent part in support of these opinions which he had always done, as a minister of the crown, he did not think that he could, consistently with his honour as a public man, agree to an arrangement, which would, he knew, be beneficial to himself, but which would, likewise, if he retained office, materially forward the success of a question, to which he could never agree, and to which he had always offered, and always must offer, the most open and decided resistance. Therefore he determined to retire from the public service, if Mr. Canning should be placed at the head of the Treasury. If his opinion on that question had been changed, he would have felt himself bound by a sense of public duty to have accepted office under his right honourable friend's administration, and to have kept himself free from even the most distant suspicion of being actuated by private or personal feelings. But, as his opinion remained unchanged, as the duke

of York was no more, and the voice of lord Liverpool was silent, he conceived he had done right in acting upon his conscientious belief, that the contemplated changes would strengthen a vital public question which he had always opposed, and that in these changes, therefore, he ought not to concur. He gave up office, because he could not hold it in connection with any administration likely to forward the claims of the Catholics. Was it probable, then, that the appointment of Mr. Canning would have this effect? He assuredly thought that it would. Looking to his consistency and sincerity, and judging of him as he would wish to be judged himself, he believed that it would be his duty, as he believed it was his intention, to press the claims of the Papists, if not immediately, at least at no remote period. It was not merely that his right hon. friend differed from him in opinion on this question; but it was that the change in the administration would have occasioned the transfer of all that influence which belonged (and most properly belonged) to the office of prime minister, to the hands of one who would use it for the purpose of forwarding an object which he had always opposed. Moreover, it was not merely a transfer of that influence from one ordinary man to another ordinary man, but a transfer from the most able opponent of the Catholic claims to their most able and eloquent advocate. He saw, that, after such a transfer had been made, the government could not, in reference to the Catholic question, be conducted on the principles which had guided it under lord Liverpool's administration; and, as he could not consent that these principles should be changed, he

had withdrawn himself from it. During the whole period, from 1822 down to the present session, on every occasion when a proposition for making concessions to the Catholics had been brought forward, Mr. Canning had given it his most decided and powerful support. He had not only supported that question when brought forward by others, but he had himself originated motions for conceding a portion of the Catholic claims, which involved the whole of the principle. In 1822, he had introduced a bill to enable Catholic peers to sit in the House of Lords, which, after passing the Commons, had been lost elsewhere. In introducing it he used these words: "I solemnly declare to the House that I would not have brought this question forward, had I not felt assured that the reparation which I ask for the Catholic Peers is in the name of policy as expedient, as, in the name of humanity it is charitable, and in the name of God, just!" If then, said Mr. Peel, it were in the name of policy expedient, if in the name of humanity it were charitable, but, above all, if in the name of God, it were just, I must believe, confident as I am in Mr. Canning's sincerity, that he will again introduce that motion; and what alternative would remain to me if I continued in office? Mr. Canning, on that occasion, declared that he anticipated (as I certainly anticipated), that the partial success of the Popish peers, if completed elsewhere, would lead to the concession of all the claims set up by the general body of the Roman Catholics. Now, I feel no desire to acquiesce in, or to be a party in directing, an attack upon principles, which I have hitherto

been strenuously defending. It is not in my power, with a due regard to public character, to consent to the introduction of even any partial concession, because it is favoured by the ministers of the Crown, and invested with all their influence and authority; and still less can I agree to any general and extensive concession. What, then, would have been my situation? It would have been, in fact, neither more nor less than this-that I would have held my office on sufferance. I might have been called on in a week or a month to retire -and that, too, at a period infinitely more inconvenient than at present for the formation of the ministry. Could I, after the declarations of my right honourable friend, coupled with his uniform conduct, entertain a doubt of the course which, in my opinion, he is pledged to take as a man and

a minister?

Mr. Peel very happily illustrated his own conduct in withdrawing from office under these circumstances by the example of Mr. Canning himself upon a similar occasion; when he refused to become part of a cabinet, the head of which was not pledged to the Catholic question. In May, 1812, when Mr. Stuart Wortley, now lord Wharncliffe, moved an address to the prince regent, praying him to take measures for forming a strong and efficient administration, it being understood that the Catholic question was to be left open among its members, Mr. Canning made use of the following language:"I have been asked whether, supposing I had accepted the offer that was made to me, I should not have felt myself at perfect liberty to act as my own opinions should dictate upon the great question which constitutes the

main bar of separation? I reply, that, as a minister, I know I should have been at liberty. I do not mean to assert, that, if I had joined the present administration to fight against my own principles, under the banners of the noble lord, I should not have had the power of making my solitary speech, and of giving my solitary vote, in support of opinions I had previously maintained. I will not even say that there may not be honourable minds who would be satisfied with such a distinction; and it may be my misfortune or my fault, that mine is not a mind of that construction. If when out of office I have lent to any cause that I deemed just my influence and my authority, I never can consent to accept office under the condition, that I shall instantly divest myself of that influence and authority which ought still to be my companions, and to leave them on one great and vital question in open and wilful abeyance. Personal objections to the noble lord I declare I have none; I am actuated by no feeling of rivalry ; and, with the exception of this particular question, I could have no earthly hesitation either in acting with or under him; but I cannot allow that the predominance of his opinion shall stifle mine. I cannot enter the cabinet, pretending not to know that the influence of the noble lord will be such as to paralyze all my feeble efforts there." If, then, he (Mr. Peel) had accepted office, he would have accepted it with the notice that these were Mr. Canning's own views of what the duty of a minister invested with office was; and, above all, he would have accepted office in opposition to the example of Mr. Canning himself an example which he honoured, because he

« ForrigeFortsæt »