OPENING OF THE SESSION.
His majesty opened the session in person on the 24th of February; the intervening days from the election of speaker having been employed in swearing in members of the house of commons. Recently the two houses of parliament had been destroyed by fire, and temporary rooms had been fitted up for the accommodation of the British senate. In the lords the address was moved by the Earl of Hardwicke, and seconded by Lord Gage. An amendment was moved by Lord Melbourne, which was apparently framed for the purpose of catching stray votes, by being so constructed that even its success could not lead to the resignation of the ministry. The Earl of Ripon and the Duke of Richmond, who had both been connected with the late government, expressed their intention of supporting ministers, so far as they could applaud their measures, though they were unable to promise them full confidence. Finally, the amendment was negatived without a division.
In the commons, the address was moved by Lord Sandon, and seconded by Mr. Branston. Lord Morpeth moved an amendment to this effect:—“That in place of the concluding paragraphs should be substituted words expressing a trust that his majesty’s councils would be directed in a spirit of well-considered and effective reform; that, in the same liberal and comprehensive policy which had dictated the reform of our representation and tire abolition of negro slavery, the municipal corporations would be placed under vigilant popular control; that all the well-founded grievances of the Protestant dissenters would be removed; that all the abuses in the church which impair its efficiency in England, and disturb the peace of society in Ireland, would be corrected; and that the commons beg submissively to add, that they could not but lament that the progress of these and other reforms should have been unnecessarily interrupted and endangered by the dissolution of the late parliament.” The amendment was seconded by Mr. Bannerman, and the debate was continued by adjournment on the 25th and 26th of February. The members who took part in it were, for the original address, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, Messrs. Pemberton, Richards, Robinson, Goulburn, and Praed, and Sir James Graham; for the amendment, Lords John Russell and Howick, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Grote, Poulton, Ward, Ewart, Harvey, Fox Maule, Gisborne, Duncombe, O’Connell, and Sir Samuel Whalley. On a division, the amendment was carried by a majority of three hundred and nine against three hundred and two. The majority being so small, Sir Robert Peel intimated that it was possible he might take the sense of the house again on the question of bringing up the report; but next evening he stated that it was not now his intention to do this. The address, therefore, as amended, was presented to the king, who made the following reply:—“I thank you sincerely for the assurances which you have given me, in this loyal and dutiful address, of your disposition to co-operate with me in the improvement, with a view to the maintenance, of our institutions in church and state. I learn with regret that you do not concur with me as to the policy of the appeal which I have earnestly made to the sense of my people. I never have exercised, and I will never exercise any of the prerogatives which I hold, excepting for the single purpose of promoting the great end for which they are entrusted to me—the public good; and I confidently trust that no measure conducive to the general interest will be endangered or interrupted in its progress by the opportunity which I have afforded to my faithful and loyal subjects of expressing their opinions through the choice of their representatives in parliament.” On a subsequent day, in answer to some questions put by Lord John Russell, the premier stated that he had not felt it his duty, in consequence of the vote on the address, to tender his resignation; that with respect to the Irish church, he retained his opinion that ecclesiastical property ought not to be diverted from ecclesiastical purposes, although any measures not inconsistent with this principle should have his best consideration; that he had no motive or intention to obstruct corporation reform; and that, in regard to a rumour which had been promulgated about another dissolution, and an alleged intention of government, in case the mutiny bill should not pass, to keep up a standing army in defiance of parliament, he had never sanctioned the first either directly or indirectly, and he had never heard a whisper about the second until it fell from Lord John Russell’s own lips. These assurances, however, were not sufficient to satisfy the objections of his political opponents.
The conduct of Sir Robert Peel, in retaining office after an adverse vote upon the address, became the subject of indignant declamation throughout the country, and strengthened the general impression that ministers intended, if possible, to destroy the measures enacted by the reform bill, and to obstruct all further melioration of the law. It was true, as the partisans of the government urged, that there were precedents for the retention of office in the face of adverse votes; but this was a vote upon the general policy of the government, not upon its policy in some non-essential particular, and constitutionally decided that the ministry did not possess the confidence of the commons house of parliament. According to all rule and precedent, Sir Robert ought to have resigned. The Duke of Sussex, Lord Holland, the great Fox, and other statesmen of acknowledged constitutional principles and respect for public rights, had always maintained these views. The conduct of Sir Robert and his cabinet was, therefore, justly held to be opposed to the practice of parliament and the doctrines of the constitution. Much of the odium of this procedure fell upon the Duke of Wellington, who was supposed to be the potential adviser of Sir Robert in this matter, and whose despotic sympathies, betrayed in many ways, gave great offence to the people. Had not the previous ministers, by their inconsistency, incompetency, and truckling to O’Connell and the Irish priest party, forfeited the confidence of a large portion of their British supporters, the efforts of Sir Robert Peel to retain office in opposition to a majority of parliament, would have created such a storm of hostility to him throughout Great Britain, as would have made it difficult for him to hold any office for many a year.