answer to the Address.

O`25th, the adjourned debate

N the second night, February

was opened by Mr. George Robinson, a reforming Whig, who expressed his intention of voting for the address, because he did not think it becoming in independent men to refuse the existing government a fair trial, and because he did not see how, if it were dismissed, a useful and stable government could be formed; for it was notorious, that the object of the amendment was not merely to supply supposed deficiencies in the address, but to destroy the present government before it was tried. Though it might be possible to form a ministry. out of the opposition, still there existed in that party so many elements of discord, as would render it impossible for them to construct a ministry capable of conducting advantageously the business of the country. The only safe and patriotic course,

therefore, was to give the new government an opportunity of bringing forward those specific measures of reform, which sir Robert Peel had stated himself willing to propose. That would be an important point gained for the country; for it would break down the party barriers which at present prevented men of equal talent and virtue from coalescing for the advantage of their common country. He was afraid that the difficulties, which Sir Robert Peel would have to encounter, would be found insurmountable; but, if he were turned out, would the difficulties of the opposition be less formidable? Their bond of union would be dissolved by the dissolution of the present ministry, and the elements of discord and confusion would so embarrass the new government, that no good, useful, practical, measure could be carried through parliament. The question was treated

as one of "reform or no reform;" and therefore it was said to be the duty of every man who called himself a reformer to turn out the present government on account of their former antipathy to reform. If he thought so, he would gladly join in the attempt to eject them; though even then he would prefer the more manly mode of proceeding by a direct vote of censure to such an expedient as this amendment. It was not, however, a question of reform or no reform. That question had already been decided by the reform act, which had placed in the hands of the constituency that degree of power, which rendered it certain that, no matter in whose hands the government was, no abuse stamped with public reprobation could hereafter be maintained. Hence, too, the absurdity of saying that because sir Robert Peel and his friends had opposed reform under different circumstances, they were to be treated as apostates, if they ventured now to bring forward measures of reform under the present state of things and parties in this country. The true constitutional doctrine was, that the ministers of the Crown must be influenced to a certain extent by public opinion, and that, whatever the private opinions of those ministers might be, as in the case of Catholic emancipation, and the repeal of the corporation and test acts, they must, to a certain extent, yield them, if there was nothing inconsistent with their character or duty in doing so, looking at the state of the country and the condition of parliament. He would rather see the cause of reform safely and steadily advancing with the consent of those who had formerly been its adversaries, than see measures of reform forced

upon the country, before the country was ripe to receive them. The results of the general election had proved that this was the state of public opinion. He would say nothing of the counties, because in them pecuniary motives had great weight; but could any fair man deny, that in cities and boroughs the electors were fairly divided between the present ministers and their opponents? Liverpool had returned the mover of the address and another member of politics diametrically different. Bristol, another great seaport, had returned, if not two, certainly one member friendly to the present government. At Halifax, a newly created borough, the balance of opinion was so close that a ministerial representative was elected, though, he believed, by a majority of only one. The result of the late election had proved two things; it had proved that the country was determined to have those reforms effected, which the lapse of time had rendered necessary for the perfection of its institutions, and it had also proved that the sense of the country was directly opposed to those rash measures of innovation, which a certain party in that House had endeavoured to force upon the late government, and which had mainly tended to the subversion of that government. He would vote for the address because, looking at the peculiar difficulties of the country with reference to the state of parties, which were at present nicely balanced, he hardly knew how any government could conduct public affairs, if each party pushed its principles to the uttermost, and did not merge their differences in the common advantage of the country. Were they to embark during another session of

parliament in that bitter opposition of party, which disabled them from duly considering those subjects which required their imme

diate attention?

Mr. Ward denied that the opposition ought to be accused of factious conduct, for it was an opposition founded on principle. The differences of opinion between the two parties might be divided into three points. The first point involved the admission of Dissenters into the universities. Sir Robert Peel held that the legislature had no right to enforce this admission. Though he admitted that it was a practical grievance which, to a certain extent, he was prepared to remedy, he did not recognize the great principle from which redress ought to flow, viz., that admission to national seminaries for national education should have no reference to religious sects or opinions; and his only measure of relief seemed to be, an arrangement to be effected elsewhere with respect to admis. sion to the learned professions. The second point of difference was, the subject of municipal corporations. Nothing, he admitted, could be fairer than the statement of the minister, that he waited for the report of the commissioners of inquiry before pledging himself to any specific measure. There was reason in this; but was it not notorious, that the leading evils of the existing municipal system were the vices of total irresponsibility and the want of popular election, both of which might have been removed without waiting for the report? The corporations, as they now existed, were the strongholds of the conservative interest; and sir Robert Peel would not be able to lead the main body of that party to destroy their own fortresses, in

which, on a future occasion, they contemplated taking refuge. The third point of difference was the question of ecclesiastical reform, particularly in Ireland. The minister, it was true, had admitted the principle of the re-distribution of church-property; and, in England, this might satisfy the honest church reformer, especially if accompanied with a greater equalization of the bishopricks, the enforcement of residence, and other similar measures. But such ä reform would not satisfy the people of Ireland; it was impossible by any mode of re-distribution to reconcile the Catholic population of that country to a system which was daily becoming more hateful to them, and under which no government could long exist. Holding these opinions, he could not but oppose a minister who had declared that he would not give his consent to the alienation of churchproperty in any part of the United Kingdom. Let the present ministry even now declare their intention to settle the question of the Irish church, and they would have his support.

Lord Stanley said, that in the present state of political affairs, and with the present prospects of the country, it became his bounden duty as an honourable man, anxiously desiring to promote the welfare of the country, and to do justice to his own principles of reform, to oppose the amendment; and, insaying so, he spoke not his own sentiments alone, but the opinion of a body of gentlemen, neither in significant in rank and standing, nor unimportant in point of numbers in that House, who, being bent on a steady adherence to sound principles of reform, were determined to work out those principles

details of the ministerial measures; but the country had already made up its mind, that the spirit and principle of corporate reform must be the same, which had already been applied to the representation in parliament. He did not go the length of thinking that, in English corporate reform, the House, in order to be consistent, must introduce all the details of the Scotch measure of reform. He did not wish to tie up the ministers in this way; but while he waited with anxiety for the measures which the government (after a reasonable time allowed) might be expected to bring forward on the subject, the present omission of something specific on the point would induce him to look at them with greater jealousy. But still he could not consent to condemn the measures of the administration, till he had seen what they were. An assent to the address did not imply the negative of what had been omitted in the speech from the throne, or pledge any man to the details of the measures which it mentioned. That speech set forth several measures of sound and substantial reform. On the one hand, he would wait with patience and forbearance to see how this promise would be carried into effect; while, on the other, he was compelled to say, the composition of the ministry was such, that he could not place confidence in it, though probably he should be the last man to quarrel with its composition, as he might have contributed in some degree to produce it. He could look on the amendment in no other way than as being intended to overthrow the government, or to obtain a majority against them, without meaning to follow up the victory; and neither of these courses could he pursue

by adequate means, but who, at the same time, were equally resolved not to effect them by any party course of proceeding, but only by such measures as they might deem safest to the country, and most conducive to the end they had in view. He agreed, that the present advisers of his majesty were responsible for the dissolution of the late government, and that it was the right and privilege of the House of Commons, if it thought fit, to express its opinion, and even to offer advice to the sovereign, as to the exercise which at any time he might make of his undoubted prerogative to choose the ministers of the Crown. He agreed also with what had been said against the extraordinary concentration of power in the hands of one individual, and that the fact of there having been no abuse in this case, was not in itself a justification of the proceeding. But, looking at the circumstances in which the country was placed, he did not wish further observations to be made, or othe steps to be taken, in reference to the subject, except that the House should be understood to entertain a feeling of disapprobation and dislike that such an assumption of power should be drawn into a precedent; nay, he was perfectly wil ling to admit, that such a step ought not to have been taken without some strong ground of necessity. Farther, if the amendment had trenched on municipal reform alone, he would have found great difficulty in opposing it; for neither the speech from the throne, nor the speech of sir R. Peel, had been so explicit on that subject as he could have wished. The latter might, no doubt, feel himself precluded by prudential considerations from stating fully what were to be the