stions 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 por