REPEATED DEFEATS OF THE MINISTRY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
While the ministry, by the introduction of these important measures, were vindicating their claim to the character of men who in their policy regarded the prosperity of the country, and were not wedded to anything which might interfere with its welfare, their conduct in other matters furnished manifold indications of the same spirit, and hence disappointed the opposition, which had predicted the continuance and the restoration of every species of abuse. Several committees which had been appointed by the late government were re-appointed; and they professed themselves willing to carry out their well-founded measures. But, notwithstanding all this, their rule was brief; they were unable to disarm the spirit of hostility. During the period in which ministers were proposing their important measures, some minor topics were introduced, in which they found themselves unable to resist the numerical force of their opponents. Thus they were left in a minority on the subject of a petition presented, complaining of Colonel Tremenhere, an officer in the public service at Chatham, as having interfered unconstitutionally in the election for that borough, in which election the government candidate had been returned. Ministers were also left in a minority, when Mr. Tooke moved an “address to his majesty, beseeching him to grant his royal charter of incorporation to the London University, as approved in the year 1831, by the then law-officers of the crown, and containing no other restriction than against conferring degrees in divinity and medicine.” Mr. Goulburn moved, as an amendment, that the address should be for copies of the memorials which had been presented against granting the charter, together with an account of the proceedings before the privy-council; but, on a division, the motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and forty-six against one-hundred and thirty-six. On the 1st of April the king returned this answer to the address:—“That his majesty, desirous that such a subject should receive the fullest consideration, had referred it to his privy-council; that the reply of his privy-council had not as yet been communicated to him; but that his majesty begged to assure his most faithful commons that he should call upon his privy-council without delay, for a report of the proceedings they had adopted on the subject, in order to enable his majesty to judge what would be the best mode of carrying into effect the wishes of his faithful commons respecting a charter to the London University, and what might be the conditions on which it should be granted.” These questions, however, did not distinctly affect the government. Frequent hints, indeed, were given to Sir Robert Peel that he ought to retire; but as yet no motion was ventured which, if carried, must necessarily have led to that result. On one occasion, Lord John Russell having remarked that all the prerogatives of the crown seemed in a fair way of being successively compromised, in the course of what he called an attempt on the part of the administration to govern with a majority of tire house of commons against them, Sir Robert-Peel complained that the opposition did not bring the question of the retirement of the ministry to a fair issue. No one was more anxious for this, he said, than he himself was; and if the opposition could not find a day for the purpose, he would facilitate their views. He asked Lord John Russell whether, if ministers had thrown up the government, he would not have turned round on them and said, “You are guilty of a cowardly abandonment of office; you never meant to remove grievances; we never brought forward a direct vote of censure; we were prepared to hear your propositions; but you yourself have shrunk from the trial.” Mr. Hume admitted that ministers had reason to complain that the question had not yet been brought to an issue; but he hinted at the same time the opposition would take their own time and day for the attack. Lord John Russell said, that if a direct vote of want of confidence had been brought forward, ministers might have gained a number of votes on the plea of being unfairly treated. They might have said to the opposition, “You now preclude us from being heard; you want to condemn us without trial; and to reject our reforms before you are able to judge of them.” He would not expose himself to the chance of receiving such an answer; he would wait for the promised measures of reform. The reply sent by the king to the house of commons on the 1st of April created great dissatisfaction in the minds of the liberal members, and among their supporters in the country. It was denounced as another instance of “back-stairs government” by many; this phrase was intended to describe the influence of the queen, and certain ladies of her suite, in political matters. Many of the people, however, absolved the court from all blame, and attributed what so much offended them to the despotic opinions and dispositions of the cabinet, especially “the duke” and Sir Robert Peel. This feeling was chiefly directed against his grace.