§ Order for going into Committee of Supply read.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL(who was very indistinctly heard)—Sir, I should not be disposed on the present occasion to call attention to our foreign relations, were it not from reports in the newspapers of what appeared to me to be a most extraordinary speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This speech purports to have been made at Slough, and I hold in my hand a copy of a newspaper which contains a report of it, and there are various points of it to which I think it necessary to call the attention of the House. Sir, if that speech had been merely a speech of passing exultation at the result of a late debate in this House on the Resolution introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell), certainly neither I nor any one would find fault with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for even excessive expressions of exultation on that account. But there are other matters which deeply concern the relations of this House to the Government, and the relations of this Government to the Governments of other countries. Now, Sir, in the first place, with regard to the relations of this House to the Government, we are informed in that speech that when the Earl of Derby was called upon by Her Majesty to form a Government, that he stated that not above a third of the Members of this House were attached to the party of which that noble Earl was the head, and therefore, that that was the only certain support on which he could rely. I know there are many who at the time, founding their opinion upon this fact—which it is now stated has been communicated to Her Majesty,—thought that the House of Commons ought not to consent to the existence of a Government commanding only that unit of support. Those who thought so might have moved to address Her Majesty, as has often been done, praying that an efficient Administration 1070 should be appointed representing the majority in this House. But that was not the course pursued, and I remember the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty told his constituents some time ago that he believed there were a great number of independent Members in this House who were not attached to any particular party, and he said that although the present Ministers might not possess the confidence of a majority of the House upon their formation, yet their measures might be such as would conciliate the support of those independent Members, and thereby place them in the constitutional position of having the command of a majority of the House. When I read that statement I thought it was the best defence which could be put forward for the situation of the Ministers, and I thought it was a position which might be constitutionally defended by those who had taken office. But the House will observe that in that defence everything depends upon the conduct of the Ministers. It was for them so to shape the measures which they brought forward in accordance with the opinions of the majority of this House as to conquer the adverse feeling that existed in regard to them and thus establish a solid claim to the support of this branch of the Legislature. The great majority of this House, I think, accepted that view of affairs, and, so far from having to complain of attacks, I think, the Government have experienced the utmost forbearance. Differing as they do in opinion on many subjects from Her Majesty's Ministers, it would have been in the power of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House to array themselves in active opposition to the Government. They have not done so, but have allowed Her Majesty's Ministers to carry on the Government of the country without disturbance. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman's speech appears to me to proceed on an endeavour to show that during the three months which have elapsed since the present Government took office they have brought forward such measures, and pursued such a course in relation to foreign affairs, and likewise to India, as deserved and commanded the confidence of this House, and if not of this House, certainly of the country. This proposition, I think, ought to be examined into a little closely. We cannot do this without examining, in the first place, into the relations of the Government with the Governments of foreign countries, for almost the very 1071 first statement that I find in the right hon. Gentleman's speech is the following:—
It is well now for us to think lightly of the perils we have passed through—even to forget them; but when I tell you, and tell you seriously, that the question of peace or war when we acceded to office was not a question of weeks or days, but of hours, I am sure you will remember that peace has been preserved, while the honour of the country has been vindicated.How is it, I ask, that our relations with France were in such a condition when the present Government came into office, that the question of peace or war was not one of weeks but of Hours? I cannot find from any member of the late Government —and I took the opportunity of asking the Earl of Clarendon in particular—that when they resigned office there was any apprehension of an imminent war. The only question, as far as I am aware, on which it was supposed that any misunderstanding could have arisen between this country and that great empire with which we are in alliance—an alliance which I hope will be long maintained—was one which grew out of the residence here of persons who had conspired against the life of the Sovereign of that country, and the Conspiracy Bill which had been introduced into this House. I cannot believe that a Prince of such great sagacity as the Emperor Napoleon, who has been so firm to the English alliance, who has been one of the best, if not the very best, ally to us of any French Sovereign, would have taken any step which should raise apprehensions of war, simply because we refused to alter our laws, and to change the ancient spirit of our domestic legislation at the desire of a foreign Government. If the right hon. Gentleman means to imply that, then I should have much less reliance on the security and stability of peace than I have at the present moment. If this is his meaning, I should not rely so firmly on the justice and on the pacific policy of the French Government as I am disposed to do. But above all, I can hardly believe any such apprehensions existed, because we are even now going into Committee to consider the Army Estimates —the plan of which is, that 20,000 militiamen, well armed and well disciplined, are to be disbanded, and we are to rely solely upon our recruits and newly-raised troops, the greater part of our effective force, and our veterans having been sent to India. I cannot imagine than any such plan would be proposed by a Government which was of opinion that peace hung upon a thread, and that we were in such danger that when 1072 the late Ministers went out and the present Ministers came in, peace or war was a question not of weeks, but of hours. There is another part of this question which, in my opinion, is of great importance, but to which the right hon. Gentleman has not called attention. Every one will recollect that when the Conspiracy Bill was brought into this House the right hon. Gentleman, in this House, and the Earl of Derby, in the other House, expressed their approbation of it. We who voted against that Bill —ninety-nine in number—were supposed to be very bad patriots, and certainly I for one had no hope that we should be able to defeat it. But afterwards, when we came to the second reading, the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, who swelled the majority of 299 on its introduction, came round and embraced most readily the proposition of the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson), the obvious effect of which was to throw that Bill over altogether. It was rumoured that the then Ambassador of France complained that he had reason to expect that the hon. Gentlemen opposite would have supported the Bill when they came into office,—that it would have been carried through both Houses, and that his expectations had been disappointed. I can conceive that there might have been a great deal of irritation existing if that were the case, not against this country, but against the present Administration. The French Government might have felt aggrieved at the conduct of our Government; but that is very different from the two countries being on the brink of war. And I will take this occasion to express my belief that the people of this country, and the people of France, taking them in the mass, are cordially disposed to keep up relations of peace. They both see that peace is necessary to commercial prosperity and to the progress of civilization, and they both are aware that the breaking out of a war must be attended with great evils, and must impose burdens on their resources which would be deeply felt by both. I repeat, Sir, that I believe that the two nations are both inclined to peace, and that the difficulty would be either in France or in England to induce the people to take up arms upon any petty matter, or, in fact, without some serious cause of quarrel. The Emperor of the French, in one of his despatches, desired his Minister to say that peace could only be maintained if the honour of both nations were kept intact—a sentiment worthy of 1073 him, which we ought always to hold in respect. I should be glad to hear, therefore, from the right hon. Gentleman an explanation of the passage which I have quoted from his speech, and I hope he will tell us, too, how it is that if we were within a few hours of war greater preparations have not been made for the defence of the country than are proposed in these Army Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman went on to make another statement in reference to the question of peace or war which is of the greatest importance. In another part of his speech he says:—A war between Naples and Sardinia, which would have been a war that would have set the whole world in flames, was nearly precipitated in order to inconvenience, and, perhaps, upset a Government which was the choice, after due reflection, of the Queen of this country, and which was honoured by her confidence, not formally, but sincerely and cordially, because they were the only party who would come forward and incur the responsibility of carrying on the Government.Now, that is another subject, with respect to which I ask for explanation. I say there has been great forbearance in this House on that subject. Those who sit on this side of the House were anxious that we should not betray, or desert, or abandon Sardinia. An hon. Member gave notice of a Motion to the effect, "that this House trusts that in the difficulties which had supervened between Sardinia and Naples, this Government will act in concurrence with that of Sardinia." I think that was a Motion which it was perfectly competent to an hon. Member to make, and in which, unless an explanation had been given, he should have persevered. But as soon as this House understood that a proposal had been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Sardinia which that Government had accepted, and that negotiations consequent on that proposal and acceptance had begun, there was no indiscreet interference with the Government. There was, above all, no wish whatever to commit or goad on Naples and Sardinia to hostilities. On the contrary, there was every disposition to wait the result of those negotiations. I might, if I should say anything on that subject, say that the House has shown over much patience upon it, because, although we profess to support Sardinia, we do not find that that concurrence has produced that which we might naturally expect it would have produced— an immediate concession on the part of Naples, at least of the ship and the crew that were seized; but that, on the con- 1074 trary, there is every danger that the crew of the Cagliari—notwithstanding that, according to the statement of the Earl of Malmesbury, the law officers of the Crown are of opinion that the capture was illegal, or at least a great part of the crew may have to suffer in the pestilential dungeons of Naples during the most unhealthy part of the year. So far, therefore, from being impatient on that subject, or showing a disposition to destroy the Government, this House has been willing to accept any intimation, however brief or incomplete, which Her Majesty's Government might make upon it. Then there is another subject upon which the right hon. Gentleman prefers a charge against a large portion of this House. I read with great surprise the statement which he made upon our policy in India. The right hon. Gentleman says that the question was whether or not we should pursue in India a policy of extermination—whether we should maintain there a force of Europeans four times greater than ever was maintained before—whether there should be no mercy shown to the inhabitants of India, and we should attempt to rule by force alone—or whether there should be a discriminating amnesty with the view of affording us a chance of restoring peace in that country. Now, I wish to know who has ever proposed that policy of extermination? Let us know where it was proposed. Did the late Government send out instructions that no mercy should be shown, that all persons who were taken should be put to death without exception, that there should be a general massacre of those who had been our subjects because they had rebelled? Or was it Viscount Canning who issued such instructions? Has Viscount Canning, contrary to all that we have seen of his policy, written home to propose a policy of extermination, believing that we call rule in India only by force? Where is the information? I conceive that there is no statesman, whether here or in India, who has proposed such a policy. But I must admit—and I admit it with sorrow—that, great and cruel outrages having been perpetrated upon the mutineers at the commencement of the mutiny, and indeed for some months, not only upon unarmed men, but upon women and children, a spirit of resentment and revenge took possession of those who had arms in their hands, and that in many cases more persons were put to death than the vanquishing of the mutineers necessitated. I be- 1075 lieve that Viscount Canning in India in a despatch to the Government in this country and which reached the hands of the late or of the present Ministers—deplored that there should be any excess of revenge, and expressed his anxiety that at the first moment possible, when resistance had been put down, to act in a spirit of mercy, and to show to the races of India that we wished to govern with them and for them, for their benefit and welfare, and not to govern by force the many million inhabitants of India. That was, I believe, the policy of the late Government; and yet the right hon. Gentleman, who expected to be believed by his constituents, and who, I dare say, was believed by them, said to them that there are now in this country men who are bent upon a massacre of all the Native races in India, and who are determined that we ought to govern them by force; and the right hon. Gentleman took great credit for the Government for having sent the orders of the 24th of March—orders founded, doubtless, upon humanity and good policy; but I have not the smallest reason for believing that any Government would not have adopted a policy of a similar character. These are the observations which I have thought it my duty to make with respect to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman upon foreign affairs and the affairs of India. I cannot but think that, in these respects, of the right hon. Gentleman, who has great powers of description and of eloquence, in representing to the people of Buckinghamshire that terrific scene for which he was indebted to his own imagination rather than to fact, it may most appropriately be said, as was said of the greatest poet of our country,—Existence saw him spurn her bounded reign, And panting time toiled after him in vain.That, no doubt, to a poet is great praise, but it is not precisely the praise which a statesman ought to receive. He ought rather to confine himself within the limits of that which actually exists, and ought not to put time so much out of breath as a poet may. Such being his statement with regard to these affairs, I think the right hon. Gentleman is bound to explain what he really meant. But there is another matter upon which he made a statement to his constituents which appears to me to have been highly objectionable—I allude to that statement of his which involved a very serious question—one not to be discussed in this House, but one at the same 1076 time upon which the constitution of this country very much depends. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman told his constituents that if a majority of this House had voted a censure upon Her Majesty's Government they would have to defend their opinions upon the hustings. Now, I beg leave to remind the House what have been the maxims on this subject of other statesmen while possessing the confidence of the Crown. They have thought, when there was a great question depending, upon which no satisfactory conclusion could be obtained in this House—when the House and the Ministers of the Crown were decidedly at variance, such as was the case upon the great India Bill of 1784, upon the Reform Bill of 1831, upon the question of Free Trade in 1841—that the solution of any such question should be sought in an appeal to the electors of the United Kingdom. But it is quite another matter when the question is whether a particular Prime Minister or a particular party should remain in office. And when Sir R. Peel, in 1846, explained his conduct in this House on resigning office, he stated that he had declined to propose to, or to advise Her Majesty to dissolve this House, because it was his opinion that that was a most delicate and sacred prerogative of the Crown, and ought not to be exercised for the purpose of any individual who might be at the head of affairs, or for the purpose of any party. Now, that entirely agrees with my opinion. And when I offered my resignation to Her Majesty in 1852 I declined to offer any advice to Her Majesty to dissolve the then Parliament. But there seems to be an opinion acquiring weight, which I am sorry to observe, that upon any occasion when the Minister has not a majority he may have recourse to that which Burke called, and I think truly called, a penal dissolution—that is to say, he may not only put the Members of this House to the great trouble and expense of an election, but may expose them to the dangers of any misrepresentation to which they may be subject in the performance of their duty. Now, that I think ought not to be the relation between the Crown and the Members of the House of Commons. You, Sir, and your predecessors, when you have gone up to the other House of Parliament to ask for the approbation of the Crown, have always asked that the most favourable construction should be placed upon the motives and proceedings of this House. That prayer may have 1077 alluded originally to the personal will of the Sovereign. That personal will, as we all know, is now represented by the advisers of the Crown, and the advisers of the Crown are bound not lightly or needlessly to attribute to unjust, unpatriotic, or dishonest motives the proceedings of the majority of this House. I lament very much that it was thought necessary by the late Government to advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament in the spring of last year. I believe that dissolution was not justified under the then existing circumstances. My opinion is, that my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton ought then to have tendered his resignation and have advised Her Majesty to call the Earl of Derby to her councils. I cannot think, Sir, that the evil to which I have referred will be remedied by the Earl of Derby saying that whenever he is thwarted in Parliament—that whenever any view which he may advance does not meet with the approbation of Parliament, he will at once advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, and using that threat as a means of coercing the actions of Members of this House. I can conceive nothing more likely to damage the constitution of the country—nothing more likely to bring on that question which is a question which might, I believe, be entertained, but which could not be entertained without considerable discussion, and without considerable difference of opinion—I mean the question of shortening the duration of Parliaments so as to limit the prerogative of the Crown. That is a very serious question, and if we have repeated threats of dissolution in order to compel Members of this House contrary to their own opinions to vote according to the behests of a Minister, I can only say that this House will stand ill with the Crown and will stand ill with the country, because the country which sends us here does so in order that we may act for the public welfare, and not for the benefit of any individual. These are general considerations, and although the threat of a dissolution has not been used in this House it has been used very commonly in society. I am sure that I have heard it stated seveal times, and it is confirmed by what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman. [An Hon. MEMBER: Where?] The right hon. Gentleman in his speech at Slough said, that if the vote of this House had been adverse to the Government, Members of this House would have had to defend their opinions to the country. Now, that could 1078 point to nothing but a dissolution of Parliament; and I say that, before Friday last, it appeared from conversations on all sides, that in case of an adverse vote Her Majesty's Government were determined to advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament. They may contradict it if they can, and i they can I hope they will say that they had no such intention. After all, let me say again I think that, even after the result of the late Motion, the position of this House towards Her Majesty's Government, is the same as the position which it held when the Administration was first formed. I think that putting aside the vauntings of the right hon. Gentleman it remains still to be seen whether the present Government can obtain and retain the support of that which is called a Liberal House of Commons, by which I mean a House of Commons bound to support measures of reform. If they can do so, then this House, which has already waited with great patience, will support, them as soon as they have gained that confidence. The solution of the question has not yet been arrived at. There are various questions which have to be brought forward upon which the Government will have to produce measures and to defend their opinions. I do not wish to anticipate any of them, but we shall have several of them in the course of the next fortnight or three weeks, and, if the Government succeed in gaining the majority of the House, those who agree with them will of course rejoice, while those who do not will have to bow to the decision. I am willing to accept that position, for I think it a constitutional position for a Minister of the Crown; but I do not think that any Government which does not obtain confidence, which does not establish itself in the opinion of this House, ought by threats of a dissolution, or by any such unworthy means of that kind, to endeavour to obtain strength at the expense of the independence of Members of this House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I can hardly flatter myself that hon. Gentlemen have all read the observations which I recently had the opportunity of addressing to some of my constituents whom I had the honour of meeting; but of this I am quite sure, that the noble Lord has assumed that hon. Gentlemen present could not have read them, because the noble Lord has endeavoured to convey to the House during the recess that I went down into the county of which I have the honour of being one 1079 of the representatives, to abuse the House of Commons, complain of its conduct, and to declare that Her Majesty's Ministers had not received a fair and equitable treatment at its hands. Perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to remind him, for he has read those observations—indeed, I see that he is still reading them, and I must say that, in my opinion, he would have done much better to study them beforehand— perhaps, I say, the noble Lord will permit me to remind him that there is not in that speech a single phrase which authorizes the statement which he has made. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Not a single sentence, I repeat, which authorizes that statement, or a single phrase which justifies the impression which he wished to convey. Nay, more, I say that if hon. Gentlemen will read that speech they will not find any statements or phrases which do not convey a directly contrary meaning. I am speaking from memory, but I think that I have a very fair recollection of what took place, and I felt it my duty to say in reference to some observations of an hon. Gentleman, that I, for one—and from my position I might be considered a candid and impartial judge—had no reason to complain of the present House of Commons. Considering that it was elected under the auspices of our rivals, considering that the late election took place under very peculiar circumstances by which a large majority of Members had been returned who were supposed to be hostile to the principles we generally profess; I was bound to say that the Government had, during their brief tenure of office, received from the House of Commons, as a body, a generous courtesy, and that on more that one occasion the sense and spirit of the House of Commons had baffled the unceasing intrigues and the restless machinations by which, from the first moment of our entering office the Government of the Queen had been assailed. Was that an attack upon the House of Commons? If so, I can only say that it was not received as such by those to whom it was addressed, and I am sure that all who listen to me, when they recall what I have stated to their recollection, will absolve me from the charge which the noble Lord has wished, by inuendo, to convey to the House. Mine was a dinner, the noble Lord has furnished a desert, and although it has taken more preparation I do not think that the entertainment of the noble Lord has been happier than that which I enjoyed. The noble Lord says 1080 that he thinks himself entitled to make the observations which he has addressed to the House in consequence of the grave character of certain statements which I made in relation to foreign affairs. He seems astounded at my having stated that when we acceded to office the question of peace or war with France was of an imminent character. The noble Lord says that, after hearing that for the first time, he went to the House of Lords and consulted the Earl of Clarendon upon the subject, and that noble Earl had informed him that he had no knowledge of the immediate danger of such an event as war with France. Now, why did not the noble Lord consult some Member of the late Government in the House of Commons? Why did he not go to the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton? There is not, I believe, existing at present such an estrangement between the noble Lord and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton as to prevent a frank and candid communication between them upon the subject. If he had consulted the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, perhaps he might have found that that noble Lord, as far as his own judgment and public experience went, would not have agreed with the Earl of Clarendon as to the impression upon his mind. Why, what happened only two days before the break up of the late Government? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes (Mr. Griffith) rose and put a question to the noble Lord then at the head of the Government, having reference to our relations with France; and what said the noble Lord? Why, Sir, he rose and said—
What does the hon. Gentleman and those who persist in asking these questions intend? Do they wish, or do they not, to maintain peace with France?And the noble Lord declined to answer the question. Now, that was, I believe, only forty-eight hours before the break up of the late Government, and the noble Lord conveyed to the House, when he declined to answer the question, that asking such questions might alone decide the issue of peace or war. Allow me, therefore, to recommend the noble Lord, who professes such extraordinary astonishment at hearing that three months ago our relations with France were of a character so delicate, to consult the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton upon the subject. Well, Sir, at about the same period the noble Lord will remember that the Ambassador of France quitted the Court to which he was 1081 accredited and returned to his own country; and such a step is only taken, as the noble Lord must know, and as every one knows, in a critical state of affairs. The noble Lord is astonished that I should have referred to that critical nature of our relations with France. Why, Sir, three months have passed away since that state of things existed, and what has occurred during that period has considerably— I may say entirely changed, the feeling which existed in the Cabinet and Court of the Tuileries. I make that statement without fear of being contradicted by any person of authority. [Mr. RICH: Oh, oh!] Is the hon. Gentleman who cries "Oh, oh!" prepared to contradict it? [Mr. RICH: Yes.] Well, then, upon so grave a subject I hope that he will come forward with those proofs which the House has a right to expect. In the meantime, I say, Sir, the relations which existed between England and France three months ago are very much changed, I may say entirely changed; and there subsists at this moment, as is shown by the accord which now prevails between them in the management of great transactions, a closer approximation to that entire good feeling which was prevalent a year ago, and for a long time prior to that date, and which at present forms a marked contrast to the tone and temper that pervaded the two countries when we acceded to office. But, says the noble Lord, it is not merely the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to France that requires explanation; a similar explanation is required as to his statement respecting Sardinia. And following the ingenious but not very candid tactics which have characterized the whole construction of this not very terrible attack, the noble Lord sought again to convey to the House of Commons that in what I had said in Buckinghamshire with regard to Naples and Sardinia, I represented that an attempt had been made in this House to upset Her Majesty's Government by encouraging a war between those two countries. Now, that is not true. I do not, of course, use that word in an offensive sense; I only mean to say that the noble Lord has got up his charges without sufficient care and reflection. The fact is exactly the reverse of what he alleges. I did not assert that the House of Commons had endeavoured, by exciting a war between Sardinia and Naples, to overturn or inconvenience the Government. What I said was, that there are persons who did this 1082 and who are trying to do it at this moment. I entirely avoided, because I felt it would be unjust to lay this to the charge of the House of Commons. On the contrary, when the attempt is made, as I have no doubt it will be, and when the influence of these arch intriguers may to a certain degree be felt in this assembly, I shall again appeal on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers to the sense and spirit of the House of Commons, and even of those who are opposed to our general policy, for their support to enable the Government to prevent the breaking out of hostilities between those two Italian States. The noble Lord represents that I have gone down to the country to attack and malign the House of Commons. Now, is it not true that when I alluded to the late great debate, on which the fate of the Ministry seemed to hang, I called the attention of the people of England to the extraordinary fact that, while the vote of censure upon the Government was undergoing full discussion, and when that vote had expanded under the marvellous and felicitous handling of the learned Knight the Member for Aylesbury on the last evening of debate into one of general want of confidence, night after night this "weak Government," this "Government on sufferance" when placed upon its trial, was defended by the first men in this assembly, the first men in authority, in intellect, and in eloquence, not connected with them in polities, not bound to them by any ties of political co-operation or association, by men speaking from their earnest convictions and lending their high authority, unbiassed and uninfluenced, to the maintenance of truth and the defeat of a cabal? Was that an attack upon the honour or upon the conduct of the House of Commons? Was it not a public declaration on the part of Her Majesty's Government that they had full confidence in the generous justice of the House of Commons—that confidence which they still retain? And it is in the spirit of that confidence that I trust I shall be able, with my colleagues, to baffle those intrigues which I know are already recommenced to inconvenience Her Majesty's Government, and if possible destroy it. But the noble Lord tells us he was extremely surprised—and this also demanded explanation—at the observations I made respecting our policy towards the people of India. He says I stated that we had prevented a policy of extermination in India, that we ourselves were opposed to that 1083 policy, and that I had attempted to convey to the country that those who are our competitors for power were in favour of extermination. Now Sir, neither in this House, nor in the county of Buckingham, nor in any other place, have I ever heard the word "extermination" uttered. But with that ingenious spirit of perversion and that dexterous tone of exaggeration which have to-night distinguished the somewhat penurious invective of the noble Lord, and which have led him to state that I went into the country to vilify the House of Commons, when in truth I offered it the sincere homage of my respect, he has here again distorted what was a mere declaration of our hostility to a policy of "confiscation" into an accusation that our opponents were in favour of a policy of "extermination." I said in Buckinghamshire what I have said in this House more than once, and what I am at all times prepared to uphold; that we are opposed to a policy of "confiscation—that we are in favour of a policy of discriminative amnesty, of a policy that will respect the religion, respect the property, and treat with a decent and due regard the rights and customs of the different races among the natives of India. I regret to have again to reiterate these sentiments, but it is forced upon me by the unseemly attack of the noble Lord, which prevents us from going into Committee of Supply. But, continued the noble Lord, all these unauthorised observations on foreign affairs and Indian policy subside into nothing compared with the unconstitutional declaration of the Minister to his constituents that if Parliament had not supported the Government, a dissolution would have been the consequence. Now, the noble Lord may read my speech again, and perhaps he will favour me with the passage in which that statement is made. He began by boldly declaring that I had informed my constituents that if on a division the majority had gone against the Ministry there would have been a dissolution of Parliament. At the end of his address he told us it was very unconstitutional, because I had intimated that if the Government had not been successful "there probably would have been" a dissolution. Well, that second version of my statement makes the matter not quite so unconstitutional as the first. All I can say is that I made no such declaration as the noble Lord has described, and that what I did say on that 1084 subject was so guarded that it did not transgress the right of any gentleman to allude to such a contingency as not impossible or even improbable. No position, however responsible, which any individual may occupy, can possibly deprive him of the privilege of making such a reference in becoming terms. What I stated was, I believe, literally this— "If, as might have been the case, we had found ourselves upon the hustings, I should have appealed with confidence again to your support, and I have no doubt the verdict of the country would have been given in our favour." But the noble Lord went into many precedents against the policy of a dissolution, and he told us that in 1852 he had never counselled the Queen when he was in a minority to dissolve Parliament. Well, it would have been a very bold thing if he had, for the noble Lord had then, I think, been six years in office, and he had received several intimations that the House of Commons wanted to get rid of him. Moreover, he had resigned a year before, and the Parliament fruitlessly had been elected under his own auspices. That a Minister who has enjoyed the high privilege of having a Parliament elected under his own auspices, who finds that Parliament so docile that it supports him for five years, and though, when its patience at last is quite exhausted, it compels him to resign, yet by the most fortunate combination of luck in the world that ever fell to the lot of a Minister, it is willing to give him a renewal of his lease for another twelve months—that a Minister in such a position should at the end of six years claim the applause of the House of Commons and the approbation of the country because he did not take upon himself to advise her Majesty to dissolve Parliament appears to me one of the most remarkable instances of self-complacency which the annals of this nation can produce. But though the noble Lord was evidently very sore on this subject of a dissolution, and though he had exhausted his ingenuity by the previous adroit perversions in which he had indulged, yet as his theme advanced he could not, from the natural candour of his disposition, resist making the admission, that neither in this nor in the other House had there been any declaration of a kind which could unconstitutionally influence the debate or the division. And here the noble Lord spoke only the truth. Neither in the House of Lords nor in the House of Com- 1085 mons can it be alleged that before the division was expected to take place at the close of the late debate any intimation was made of the Royal will, or any indication given of the policy which the Government would recommend to the Sovereign in respect to a dissolution. But, observed the noble Lord—and this is a point on which he and his friends are very sensitive—this event was talked about everywhere—in drawing-rooms, in the clubs, in the lobby of this House, I suppose, and certainly also with remarkable frankness here by several hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. The word dissolution, said the noble Lord, was spoken of everywhere; the practice of so speaking it is most inconvenient, and I must, in a high constitutional manner, gravely deprecate and denounce it. Well, I believe the noble Lord is quite correct as to the fact. You really could not enter any House in England in which it was not said, "It must end in a dissolution." Why did they say so? What made people everywhere say "This must end in a dissolution." Why, Sir, it was the conduct of certain individuals in this House, who so behaved towards Her Majesty's Government that people began to see and to feel that there was no alternative but getting rid of the House. The people who said it everywhere felt that the Earl of Derby had been called upon by Her Majesty most unexpectedly to form a Government. The Earl of Derby told Her Majesty that he had not of declared followers in the popular House, sufficient to give him anything approaching to a majority, and in a commendable spirit, and not eager for office, he humbly counselled Her Majesty to reconsider her appeal to him, at the same time rightly assuring her that, whatever might be her decision, he was entirely devoted to her service. Her Majesty graciously condescended to reconsider her appeal, These are not State Secrets. The noble Lord seemed to intimate to the House and to the country that I had been divulging State secrets in Buckinghamshire; but these are the statements which, by Her Majesty's permission, the Earl of Derby made in the House of Lords when he announced his accession to office. Well, the people of this country knowing all this, knowing that the Earl of Derby and his friends had not been eager to seize the spoils of office, but had acted very differently from the conduct of others recently—knowing that it was after the due repre- 1086 sentation of these difficulties to Her Majesty that she repeated her wish, and that it was in deference to her commands, and from a paramount sense of duty, that we took this responsibility,—knowing, as they did, that we had sedulously, honestly, and not altogether without success administered affairs during our brief tenure of office, the great body of the people, whether Whigs, Tories, or Radicals, when they saw a cabal organized, when they saw the sense and spirit of the House of Commons exhibited by some of its most eminent Members opposed to the Government generally, but yet not condescending to take part with that cabal,—when they saw all these circumstances, felt, as every man of spirit, whatever his political opinions, must have felt, that a Government which had acceded to power under such circumstances and encountered such opposition could not in duty recede from its position without humbly counselling Her Majesty to exert her constitutional privileges. It wanted no Minister to menace Parliament,—it wanted not even the private intimations of people in office to influence votes. The fear of a dissolution, the announcement of a dissolution, came from the opposite benches—from the opposite party. It was the general opinion of the country, which felt that the Government of the Earl of Derby, encountering such opposition, ought not to, and could not, fall without appealing to the popular sense. That was the general feeling. It required no unconstitutional, no undue exercise of our position and authority to influence the public voice and the division of this House. Public opinion was in our favour, because public opinion was outraged by the conduct of certain individuals; to that public opinion we appeal, and I believe that it will support us, notwithstanding such sorry attacks as I have met this evening at the hands of the noble Lord.
§ MR. RICHsaid, that he would in one or two sentences dispose of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman as to his statement, that when the present Government acceded to power we were within a few hours of a war with France. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would prove that assertion, and taunted his noble Friend with not consulting the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton before referring to this subject. His noble Friend (Lord John Russell) consulted that noble Lord's colleague the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—there could be no higher 1087 authority—and received from him the answer which he had quoted. But the right hon. Gentleman promised to prove his assertion, and how did he fulfil that promise? He said, "Did not the hon. Member for Devizes ask the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton some question to which the noble Lord replied, 'He wants us to go to war with France?'" And the right hon. Gentleman actually had the boldness to give that answer, neither more nor less, as a proof that we were within a few hours of a war with France. That was proof No. 1. Proof No. 2 was worthy of it. It was this —"Did not the French Minister very suddenly quit this country at the time referred to?" Now, can or will the right hon. Gentleman deny that the French Minister left this country for a few days only, and that, for special reasons connected with affairs of his own Government, that he returned before the change of Government took place here; and that some week or ten days later, when he was exchanged for another Ambassador, that this change arose in no degree from differences with the late, although, if rumour be true, it was not disconnected from differences with the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had not a shadow of a shade of a reason for the assertion which he made. When a Cabinet Minister rises in his place and repeats a declaration in the face of the country that two great nations like France and England, living in all apparent amity, were within a few hours of rushing into war with each other it was a most unjustifiable attack upon the Governments of both countries, and it was most unbecoming for that House to allow such an attack to be made, and to be satisfied with such flimsy and irrelevant reasons as had been given for it by the right hon. Gentleman. As to the right hon. Gentleman's praise of that House, it consisted merely of praise of those who supported him, and it would have been most extraordinary if he had blamed them; but when he applied the word "Cabal" to those who censured Lord Ellenborough's despatch, let him (Mr. Rich) ask if he had recommended Her Majesty to reinstate the Earl of Ellenborough in office. If he had not, he must have committed a gross injustice to that noble Lord. Did that noble Lord resign for any reason, or did he not? He presumed that he resigned because he had been guilty of the publication of a despatch which was so improper that the noble Lord at the head of the Government could not defend it; and if the late debate 1088 had gone on it would have been proved that the right hon. Gentleman was himself much more guilty of that publication than even the Earl of Ellenborough who had been made its victim; for the right hon. Gentleman, on a previous occasion, speaking from his place, declared in so many words what was the nature of that despatch, and thereby rendered its publication inevitable. This he had done apparently without the Earl of Ellenborough's knowledge or consent. But he was more guilty still; for the Earl of Ellenborough had the discretion, before laying the despatch on the table of the Lords, to suppress that portion which referred to Oude and was in a constitutional sense its most damaging element; but the right hon. Gentleman had no such discretion; he placed the whole despatch on our table. Therefore, what he called the Cabal would have brought more guilt home to him than to the Earl of Ellenborough; and if he had acted with a due and manly generosity he would have tendered the like resignation which the Earl of Ellenborough so magnanimously sent to Her Majesty; but if the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman was more questionable, it certainly was more profitable, for it accepted and took advantage of that very resignation for an offence in which he himself was something more than an accomplice. He appealed to the House to say whether the right hon. Gentleman had not made a most unjustifiable attack upon France and England, and had not supported his statement by flimsy and irrelevant reasons.
SIR GEORGE LEWISIt is with the greatest reluctance that I rise to say a few words on this question, and thus for a short period to prolong the debate; but being the only Member of Her Majesty's late Government who is now in his place, I feel that I should not be doing my duty to the House if I allowed all the statements of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to pass without notice. As far as I could follow the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the observations of my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), it consisted mainly of a denial of the accuracy of the report of his speech which appeared in the public newspapers, because the general purport of that speech, as it was reported, was, according to my recollection, rendered with perfect fidelity, by my noble Friend; and upon each point the right hon. Gentleman said that the language which he had used was not the language attributed to him, but was language altogether different.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERWhat I said was that the language I used was not that attributed to me by the noble Lord—the word "extermination," for instance. I did not at all question the accuracy of the report.
SIR GEORGE LEWISI understood the right hon. Gentleman to deny the accuracy of the representation made by my noble Friend, and to say that it was not the language which he used to his constituents. I have not a copy of the speech to refer to, but my recollection of his speech as reported in the newspapers agrees with the version of it as given by my noble Friend, and does not agree in any respect with the version given of it by the right hon. Gentleman himself. That is the deliberate statement which I make to this House. I am unable to substantiate it by reference to words, but my memory is quite distinct. I will refer particularly to his version of what he said with respect to the policy which had been adopted towards India. He said that he claimed for the Government the honour of disapproving a policy of confiscation, but he did not go further. My recollection is distinct that he attributed either to the late Government, or to some persons whose policy he was condemning, the adherence to a policy of massacre and confiscation. I have a distinct recollection that the word "massacre" was used in his speech. Now, I claim most distinctly for the late Government a consistent adherence from the very commencement of the outbreak to a policy of clemency and mercy, as far as justice to our own countrymen would permit. It will be in the recollection of the house that the popular objections to the policy of Lord Canning, which policy had received the approbation of the late Government, was that it was a weak policy, that it erred too much on the side of lenity, and that the administration of justice was not sufficiently severe. Upon what, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer founds the panegyric which he has pronounced upon himself for having repudiated an imaginary policy of proscription and extermination I am utterly at a loss to conceive. Again, I thought the right hon. Gentleman met in a very unsatisfactory manner the extract which my noble Friend read from his speech with respect to this country having been within a few hours of war. I repeat in the most distinct manner, what has been already stated, that when the late Government left office they were wholly ignorant 1090 of the dangers with which the right hon. Gentleman says this country was menaced. The division by which the late Government were put out of office took them by surprise. They were not aware that our relations with France were of a menacing kind. Undoubtedly there was a strong feeling in this country with respect to certain expressions which had been used by officers of the French army, which had been inserted in the Moniteur, and which it was thought had not been sufficiently disavowed; but to say that there was any such misunderstanding between the Government of France and the Government of England as threatened this country with imminent war is, in my opinion, one of the greatest misrepresentations which any responsible Minister ever attempted to impose upon the credulity of this House and the public at large. I deny it in the most positive manner, and I feel satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman will find himself utterly unable to produce any evidence in support of his assertion. The only attempt at proof which he is able to produce is an answer which my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton made to an hon. Gentleman who asked him what I must be allowed to consider— though, perhaps, I have no right to comment upon his expressions—a somewhat indiscreet question. My noble Friend declined to answer that question, and said that if questions pointing personally to the Emperor of the French, and throwing doubt upon his veracity and good faith, were to be put from day to day in this House, they were likely to lead to a misunderstanding—and he may have added, to a war—between the two countries. But that reply did not relate to any negotiations which were in progress, or to anything which had passed between the Government of this country and the Government of the Emperor of the French. Now, with respect to the question of India, which appears to me to be in a very grave state, I am perfectly contented to take whatever share of responsibility may attach to me for having supported the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell). I believe that Motion was founded upon perfectly just and defensible principles. Notwithstanding all that has passed, I retain my opinion that the composition of the despatch of the Earl of Ellenborough and the publication of that secret document in the way in which it was effected was a grave offence, which justly 1091 deserved the unfavourable notice of this House. I cannot regret that Motion, inasmuch as the announcement of it had at least this one good effect — it produced the resignation of the late President of the Board of Control. He, by withdrawing from his office, and the Prime Minister, by advising that his resignation should be accepted, so far acknowledged the justice of the censure which this House was invited to pass upon his conduct. But I am not going to revive the discussion upon that question. I shall only say, that in my opinion the subsequent publication of the secret correspondence between the Governor General and Sir James Outram—rendered necessary, I admit, by the previous improper publication of the Earl of Ellenborough's despatch— added to the great inconvenience which had already arisen, inasmuch as it was a correspondence of a nature such as on no previous occasion had ever been submitted to Parliament. One of the letters contained in it distinctly charged Sir James Outram carefully to suppress all the copies of the Proclamation in his possession, which identical Proclamation, in its original form, has now been laid on the table of this House, and will be made public to the whole of India. I think that the necessity of producing that additional correspondence was an aggravation of the original offence, and I am prepared to reassert the impropriety of the course adopted by the Government; but, even if I did not think that the course adopted by the Government was objectionable, and certain, upon mature reflection, to be condemned by the impartial judgment of the country, I should protest against the language now used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those with whom he is acting, in attributing any Motion which may be inconvenient to them, and of which they wish to get rid, to the influence of faction, in saying that it originates in the intrigues of some unnamed persons, of which intrigues they are unable to produce the smallest evidence, and in denouncing it as the result of some unknown cabal. In order to make these high-sounding and invidious terms the more important, and to have the greater weight with the country, the right hon. Gentleman insinuated in his speech to his constituents that this cabal was in some way or other connected with foreign intriguers. I am sorry that my noble Friend the Member for London, when speaking of foreign affairs, did not ask for an explana- 1092 tion of this very mysterious passage. To me it is wholly unintelligible. I have not the smallest notion to what the right hon. Gentleman referred; but it seems that this Motion, which so much alarmed the Government, and which they thought it necessary to meet with threats of a dissolution, said that it was connected with some unknown, indescribable, and mysterious foreign influence. In conclusion, I wish only to say that I recognize fully with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the gravity of our present position in India. I trust that not only the Resolution which we are about to consider, but the relations of the Governor General with the territory of Oude, will be treated in a calm, dispassionate, and impartial manner. I therefore abstain from making any remarks upon that subject at present; but I may be permitted to say, that in my opinion the question was not left in a satisfactory state by the observations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on the last night of our sitting before the recess. I had hoped that the Government would announce the appointment of a responsible Minister to preside over the Board of Control. The expectations which we naturally entertained have not been satisfied by any announcement made even this evening. The Earl of Ellenborough, I presume, holds his office only until his successor is appointed. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to criticise his conduct, or to ask for any explanation of policy from him. Nor need we inquire from the Government what their intentions with respect to India are until the office of President of the Board of Control is filled by a responsible Minister. But I trust that as soon as the Government have announced their new President of the Board of Control they will inform us in the most distinct manner, without any rhetorical exaggeration about massacre and extermination, without panegyrizing themselves for some supposed policy of clemency and mercy, whereas they impute a barbarous, savage, and sanguinary policy to their antagonists—without, I say, these somewhat puerile flowers of rhetoric, what it is they intend to do with the territory of Oude. I trust they will tell us whether they intend that the Proclamation which has been issued should be revoked. If it is not to be revoked, what is it they have instructed Viscount Canning to do; whether it is their intention to give him their cordial support and confidence, and, if not, whe- 1093 ther they Mean to recall him, and whom they propose to appoint in his place? These are plain questions, having nothing to do with flowery orations to constituents at Slough. They are questions, however, upon which this House is entitled to have a distinct explanation, and that explanation, I trust, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will shortly be prepared to give in a manner deserving the careful consideration of Parliament and the country.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONWe seem to be in a somewhat unsettled state, and I shall, not venture to intrude my opinion upon the House as to the cause of the uneasiness which exists; but I may be permitted to notice the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last with respect to the publication of the correspondence between the Governor General and Sir James Outram. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the production of that correspondence. I hold an entirely different opinion. I believe that the House of Commons has suffered far more from suppression and secrecy than from publicity. I will not be one to complain of a Government, whether Conservative or Liberal, who think it consistent with their public duty to communicate information to the House of Commons; and I must say that I think that those hon. Gentlemen who brought forward the late Motion in reference to the Earl of Ellenborough's despatch have no right whatever to complain of the production of the correspondence as respects their own interests, for it furnished them with a creditable mode of escaping from a very difficult position. I believe that that Motion was from the beginning based on a false issue, and that it would have ended in any case in a defeat; but the being able to say that further information had put the matter in a different position was, in point of fact, being able to take advantage of a mode of escape somewhat more creditable than otherwise would have been the case. I was not prepared to-night for a discussion on the state of the nation, and I think that some notice ought to have been given of the intention to raise such a discussion; but, with respect to some observations which have been made in reference to the Conspiracy Bill, I will take leave to say that I did not collect from the public statements of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire that he approved the Conspiracy Bill itself as proposed by the late Government, but that he would not be a party to object to 1094 the introduction of a measure in deference to the wishes of the French Government. I really, when I brought forward my Amendment, framed it with the feeling on my mind that hon. Gentlemen were not committed to the merits of the particular measure, and, without knowing what course hon. Gentlemen would take, I felt that there was nothing in the public speeches which had been made that precluded Members from opposing the Conspiracy Bill on its merits on the second reading; there was no inconsistency in a Member voting for the first reading of the Bill, and afterwards voting against the principle of the Bill on the second reading. With respect to the question of Sardinia and Naples, I should be very sorry to see the Government of the day urged into an unnecessarily hostile course in reference to this matter, as if it were an evil that the question between Sardinia and Naples should be settled without fighting. The protocols and Resolution come to at the Conference at Paris point out a mode of settling differences that may arise between the Powers of Europe; and the representatives of the great Powers at that Conference all pledged themselves to the principle that, previously to having recourse to arras, it is desirable to settle such disputes as might occur by arbitration or mediation. That having been the deliberate Resolution of the parties to the Conference, and it having been so recently agreed to, I certainly cannot complain if the Government did appear desirous of bringing into action the principle of that Resolution, and of endeavouring by every means in their power to bring about a settlement of this question between Sardinia and Naples by arbitration or mediation. I, therefore, could not have been a party to support any Motion made in this House with a view to prevent, as it were, the peaceable settlement of the question. I am extremely glad to find that, on the question of India, both sides of the House are willing to support, or to avow their support of, the principles of humanity and mercy. I remember reading, not long since, a remarkable passage in a leading journal to this effect,—that in the affairs of India humanity and justice were secondary considerations. Well, I am glad to find that we are not now ashamed to be thought capable of acting in the spirit of humanity, justice, and mercy to the people of India, notwithstanding the great atrocities which have 1095 undoubtedly been committed towards our own fellow-countrymen. I, therefore, am glad that this discussion has arisen, in order that the world may see that, as passions have become subdued, all parties are favourable to a policy of humanity and mercy. If there be astonishment felt that a great party like the Liberal party, being superior, no doubt, in numbers both in the country and in this House to what is called the Conservative party, should nevertheless find itself on the Opposition benches, I think that that state of affairs can only be explained by this simple circumstance—that the party has been badly led and badly handled; that those who have conceived the policy which it should adopt and support have been mistaken, and we have unfortunately by those mistakes been led to the "cold shade" of Opposition, when otherwise hon. Gentlemen near me would still have been on the Treasury benches. I am firmly myself of this opinion, and I see no chance whatever of the restoration to power of the Liberal party, unless that party brings forward its own measures, founded on its own principles, and carries its measures through into practical effect, and shows to the country that it is not merely the Liberal party in name, but that it is earnest in the cause of Reform, and will use power, when it has it, to carry its principles into practical legislation.
§ MR. COLLIERsaid, he did not intend to protract the present discussion; but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had imputed to the noble Lord the Member for London grave misrepresentations of what the right hon. Gentleman said at Slough, and as the right hon. Gentleman admitted the accuracy of the reports, he would read a short passage from the speech as given in The Times. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here intimated that the report in The Times was perfectly correct, as well as the reports in other newspapers.] The noble Lord the Member for London said that the right hon. Gentleman had accused certain parties of being the advocates of a policy of cruelty, vengeance, and extermination, and the right hon. Gentleman said that he had done no more than allude to confiscation. Now, lie would give the House an opportunity of judging between the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman. The noble Lord's expression of "extermination" was not correct certainly, but the House would be able to say whether the noble Lord's description did not equally 1096 apply to the words used. The right hon. Gentleman said at Slough:—
We had to decide—for it was the turning point of our Indian empire—the character of the policy which ought to be pursued; whether it should be a policy of unmitigated vengeance, or whether the time had arrived when we should attempt to rebuild our grand empire in the East on principles of a very different character, and leading, as we believed, to a very different result. Was it to be military occupation," the right hon. Gentleman continued, "by an army four times greater in amount than any army of Europeans that ever entered that country? Was it to be military occupation attended by enormous taxation, by a draining of Her Majesty's subjects from this country, and by a perpetual exhaustion of our resources? or were we to recognize that vengeance had done its duty?The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say:—Was it always to be massacre and confiscation? or, on the other hand, was it to be discriminating amnesty?[Cheers.] The hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered very loudly, and he must do them the justice to say that they had lately given the most efficient support to the Government by their lungs at least; but the question was, whether the right hon. Gentleman was correct in stating that he had referred to nothing but "confiscation?" The right hon. Gentleman was reported to have used the words "massacre" and "vengeance," though not "extermination;" and therefore the noble Lord the Member for London was substantially accurate in his statement.
§ MR. WHITESIDEConsidering the industry which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Collier) has shown in conning over may right hon. Friend's speech for the last half hour, I do not think he has made much of it. The right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) says this is a discussion on the state of the nation; I would rather say it is a discussion on the state of nations, for the affairs of all the nations of Europe have been brought in review. What my right hon. Friend said was this, that there were two policies which might be pursued towards India—a policy of vengeance and confiscation, and a policy which would be consistent with an enlightened amnesty. I uphold that sentiment, and abide by it; it is a sentiment founded on humanity and reason; it is consonant with the feelings of the country; and I am surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen, who were so confident in the justice of their opinions, but who shrank from bringing the question to a division last week, now come forward 1097 again and reiterate their old assertions. The right hon. Member for Radnor (Sir G. C. Lewis) says he abides by all he said and all he did—that he is affected by no argument, changed by no fact; he is unchangeable, and to be convinced by nothing; and then he says that my right hon. Friend was disrespectful to the House of Commons. Why, the greatest possible disrespect is shown to the House by the right hon. Gentleman himself, who says that notwithstanding the strange scene which was witnessed here on Friday last—in which the opinion of the House was most unequivocally manifested, though we on this side took no part in it—that notwithstanding all this, he still maintains the justice of the Resolution, he defends its propriety, he is not altered by the decision of the House, he maintains that all the world is wrong and that he alone is right. The right hon. Gentleman says he never heard of anything showing that this country was in danger of a collision with France. Why, the right hon. Gentleman must have been perfectly ignorant of what was in every person's thoughts at the time; he must have been living in the Republic of Plato, and not in the ordinary world. Then he asks for proofs of the fact. It would certainly be a strange thing if a Minister of the Crown were to stand up and state seriatim to the House all the matters which would justify such a statement to his constituents. That statement might be substantially true, but it might not be capable of logical proof. Does the right hon. Gentleman, however, mean to tell this House that there was no language used by French military men, none published by the journals, none employed in high quarters, which offended, and justly offended, the people of this country? Does he mean to say that there were no facts patent to everybody which justified the apprehension of a collision between the two countries? I think the right hon. Gentleman might have remembered these facts in his calmer moments—yes, he has been unusually lively to night, while the noble Lord has been more than usually tranquil; but I cannot say that, though the late Chancellor of the Exchequer has been lively, he has been at the same time philosophical—he has shown too much spleen for that. I must say that I think the noble Lord opposite did not fairly hit the question in relation to the displacement of the late Government. The Motion of the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) 1098 was made to censure Her Majesty's Ministers for having deserted their duty to the country, because they did not reply to the despatch of the French Minister, and thus failed to maintain the national honour. The Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman was not that the law of conspiracy might not be considered at a fit and proper time. In pausing that Resolution and inflicting that censure, the House of Commons decided that the late Government had neglected their duty, but the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. C. Lewis) tells us that the House of Commons is wrong again; in fact the House of Commons is always wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman is always right. The noble Lord then referred to the dispute between the Governments of Naples and Sardinia. Now, let me say to the noble Lord that this Government is friendly to the Government of Sardinia, and will stand by Sardinia, because we admire a country that is governed on constitutional principles similar to our own, that rejects Mazzini-ism, that refuses to be ruled either by the soldier or the priest. That is a valuable fact. But then we can only support any country when that country is in the right; and it does not follow that we are bound to support her at all times without reference to the question whether she is right or wrong. I read over the papers connected with that question with the utmost care, because I expected that we should have had a discussion of them in this House, and I am ready to maintain that the noble Lord at the head of our Foreign Affairs, though he has no critics in the newspapers to write him up, discharged his duty to his country, throughout the whole of this affair, with prudence, with spirit, with judgment, with discretion, with wisdom. Then the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman appear to be somewhat excited on the subject of India. What is your policy? asks the right hon. Gentleman — with perfect sincerity no doubt,—What do you mean to do? The right hon. Gentleman says he has read all the papers, but he certainly does not appear to have made himself master of them. If the right hon. Gentleman would sit down to those papers in the same spirit of fairness with which he sits down to comment on a book, he would be at no loss to understand our policy, which has been approved of by this House, and which I am not afraid will be disapproved of by the country. The noble Lord closed his 1099 speech with his accustomed homily upon the constitution. He says it is a most unconstitutional thing to threaten the House with a dissolution. I suppose, then, he will allow it is a much more unconstitutional thing to carry that threat into execution. To be sure the noble Lord feeling what would be said on that subject, did to-night administer a gentle and temperate rebuke to the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton for having dissolved Parliament in consequence of the vote on the Chinese question, But why did not the noble Lord take the first opportunity when the House met of telling his noble Friend that he had done an unconstitutional thing? It is marvellous that he has omitted until the present moment to notice that when the House of Commons voted against the policy of the Chinese war the late First Lord of the Treasury, "the most popular Minister the country ever had," dissolved Parliament, spite of all the constitutional arguments to the contrary which he must have imbibed from association with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and sent hon. Members about their business. [Lord J. RUSSELL: I did remonstrate with my noble Friend.] But why should the noble Lord be so sensitive at the prospect of a dissolution? Was not every patriotic mind glad of an opportunity to meet his constituents? What fear could the noble Lord entertain of facing his constituents on the hustings again? It was true the noble Lord in his speech drew a very just distinction, that a Member might often be obliged, in performing the highest services for his constituents, to vote against their wishes; but certainly the noble Lord had shown a very lively fear of the prospect of having to meet his constituents on the hustings. On the whole, then, though this discussion had been unexpectedly raised, I do not see that it has been at all prejudicial either to the conduct of the Government or to the speech of my right hon. Friend.
LORD JOHNRUS SELLsaid, he wished to explain his use of the word "extermination." He had no wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, and desired to quote the exact words employed, but had been unable at the moment to find the passage. It now appeared that the words were "unmitigated vengeance" and "massacre." He thought the sense implied by these words was not very different from that which he had conveyed; but 1100 the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to have spoken of "extermination."
§ MR. GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to explain how he came to put the question which had been so frequently referred to in the course of the discussion. The House would remember that when the Conspiracy Bill was introduced a very strong impression was made in favour of the Government by the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir. G. Grey) reading at the close of the debate the despatch of Count Walewski, apologizing for the language which had been used towards this country. But, he (Mr. Griffith) from his acquaintance with France, and his knowledge that no Government, whatever might be its name, gave real liberty to the people, suspected that that despatch would not be published as the offensive articles had been in the Moniteur. He waited for some days, and finding that his anticipations were correct, and the despatch did not appear, be put a question respecting it in the House, when the noble Lord gave him an answer which certainly betrayed an apprehension that such questions would produce a war with France. He had put the question referred to entirely on his own account, and had not consulted any one with regard to it. No doubt the answer of the noble Lord had some effect on the independent Members of the House.
§ Motion made and Question proposed,— "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."