THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S SPEECH AT SLOUGH.

HC Deb 31 May 1858 vol 150 cc1204-48

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

rose and said: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday last, when I, perhaps through negligence, was not present in the House, made an appeal to me upon a matter of very great national importance, and I therefore feel it my duty to take the earliest opportunity upon coming to town to answer his appeal. The right hon. Gentleman on Wednesday last—I think it was on the 26th instant,—before a large assembly of his constituents at Slough, made a speech which he will forgive me for saying has, I believe, excited the astonishment of most of those who have read it. It was natural that the right hon. Gentleman should feel elated at the position in which he then stood. For the first time he found himself in a large assembly, not only in a majority, but actually supported unanimously by those who were present. That was a position entirely new to the right hon. Gentleman. It was not surprising that he should be elated by the spontaneous cheers of 500 or 600 honest but deluded farmers—he who had been accustomed of late merely to the cheers of a small band of well-drilled supporters in this House, who cheered him as well-drilled soldiers act at the call of the fugleman. It was natural that when the right hon. Gentleman heard the heartfelt acclamations of these honest but misguided farmers, who thought they had before them the unflinching champion of Protection, the uncompromising antagonist to Free Trade, he should be elated; and, therefore, if he had made a speech suitable to his position as a Minister of the Crown going down to meet his constituents nobody could have found fault with the manner in which he availed himself of that occasion. But I must say that the speech which he made was of that character, that if it had been made by a man of humbler condition, ignorant of national affairs, unaccustomed to the arts of government, knowing not the duties which belong to a responsible Government, we might have treated what he said with indulgence, and perhaps with compassion. Non Massica Bacchi Munera, non illis epulæ nocuere repôstæ. But it was not so with the right hon. Gentleman. He came with a speech which bears much evidence of deliberate and studious preparation. He announced himself as speaking there as the representative of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore that which fell from his lips acquires additional importance, not only from the matter but from the person by whom it was pronounced. The right hon. Gentleman began by stating that the Earl of Derby, when he came into office, succeeded to a heritage of innumerable difficulties. I remember to have heard with my own ears from the lips of the Earl of Derby, that when he came into office he found the country in every respect in a satisfactory condition, and that his only ambition was that when he left office, were that time remote or near, he might leave the country in as good a position as that in which he found it. Now, the Earl of Derby is a man who, with his wonderful powers of mind, might have made the best speech that ever issued from his lips upon a sudden as well as after a fortnight's preparation, so far as composition is concerned; but the Earl of Derby upon that occasion said that he required a few days to prepare himself for that speech,—not to prepare for the periods of that eloquence which was to delight an audience, which represents almost every class in the community, but to inform himself of all the matters connected with his Government, in order that he might be able to speak with knowledge and authority upon the state in which he found the country at the time he entered upon office. Therefore I say that the assertion made by the Earl of Derby when he said the country was in a satisfactory condition is a refutation of the assertion that his heritage was encompassed by innumerable difficulties. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to enumerate what those difficulties were, and he placed in the first rank that with respect to which I am about to make a statement, in answer to the appeal made to me by him. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that when the present Government came into office they found the country upon the verge of war, and that the question of peace or war was hanging, not upon weeks, nor upon days, but actually upon hours. Now, Sir, all I can say is, that, so far as I am informed—so far as I know anything with regard to our relations with France at that period, that statement is utterly and entirely groundless. It is not only groundless, but it is actually the opposite of the truth. I cannot but express my surprise that the right hon. Gentleman should have made such an assertion anywhere, but more especially that he should have made it in the place and at the time that he did. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know the gravity of the statement which he made? But, assuming it to be a true statement, such a statement ought not to have been made in such an assembly. It ought not to have been made in a booth at Slough, to a parcel of carousing electors. If that statement had been true—if the right hon. Gentleman thought that the public interests required that it should be made known—if he believed that the country was apathetic with regard to the national defences, as has been stated just now by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck)—if he thought it was necessary to awaken the country to the chances of danger which from time to time hang over our heads, in order that not a moment might be lost to prepare the necessary defences, it is in this House, upon the Army and Navy Estimates, that an assertion of that sort should have been made. He should have made it upon the responsibility of a Minister speaking from the Treasury bench in a Committee of Supply, and it should have been made in such a manner as might not give offence to the country against which it was levelled. Again, I say that I deny that statement utterly and entirely. When upon Friday last my noble Friend the Member for London alluded to the subject, the right hon. Gentleman, with an air of triumph, got up and quoted something which I said in this House as a proof of his assertion, and he also mentioned as another proof, a circumstance connected with the French Ambassador. Now, as regards the two observations of mine which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, I say that those observations themselves entirely disprove and repudiate the assertion which he has made. The right hon. Gentleman quoted an answer which I gave to a question which was put to me by an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, and which I thought was a question calculated to give offence to the Government of France. My reply was, "Before I answer the question I should like to ask the House whether it was their wish and intention that those confidential and intimate relations which then existed between the Government of England and the Government of France should be maintained, or whether it was their wish to infuse into those relations a spirit of bitterness, irritation, and animosity?" I said nothing about war. What I said was, that there then existed the most intimate and confidential relations between the two Governments, into which I thought the repetition of questions such as that to which my answer alluded, questions aimed in a personal and offensive manner at the Sovereign of the French, would be likely to introduce a different spirit from that which then existed. My assertion then was, that our relations with France were of a most intimate and confidential nature, and I beg the House to remember when it was that that answer was made. The right hon. Gentleman has told us, that I made that statement only forty-eight hours before the fall of the late Government, so that it is clear, according to what I then said, that within forty-eight hours of our leaving office the relations between this country and France were of a most intimate and confidential character, instead of being such as were at all likely to lead to war. Then, said the right hon. Gentleman, the French Ambassador suddenly quitted England, and it is well known that an Ambassador does not suddenly leave the Court to which he is accredited without his departure meaning something very like a rupture. Now, what is the fact? Why, Count de Persigny—of whom I may say that there is not a more honest or plain-dealing man in England— he is a man thoroughly imbued with a patriotic love of his own country, and is proud of being a Frenchman, but at the same time he is deeply convinced that a cordial alliance between England and France is of the utmost advantage to both countries and to the world at large. Well, Sir, I say what were the facts? Why, they were these:—Count de Persigny went for a fortnight to France upon his own private affairs, and I believe that he was in Paris when the change of Government took place, so that instead of his departure from this country being coincident with that change, he returned to it about that time. Instead of a sudden departure of the French Ambassador happening closely with the advent of the present Government—I speak from recollection—I believe that he returned two days after they came into office; therefore, if anything is to be drawn from the departure of the French Ambassador it is valueless for the right hon. Gentleman's purpose. There was no ground for concluding that there was any imminent prospect of war from the departure of the French Ambassador. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, explain the grounds upon which he made that most injudicious and improper statement—a statement calculated to affect the public credit of the country, and to throw distrust upon all our commercial transactions. I say, to throw distrust upon all our commercial transactions, because, when men are told that, at a moment, when they are quite ignorant of their position, their country is within hours of a war with France, how can you expect confidence to exist in the commercial relations between the two countries? And is it not an indiscretion on the part of a Minister of the Crown to sow broadcast over all our commercial transactions the seed of distrust and want of confidence? Well, then, I say that if the statement of the right hon. Gentleman were well founded, and in accordance with the facts, it was a most improper statement to make at the time and place when it was made. But if it was not well founded, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot state reasons which justify him in entertaining that belief, I shall be lost in amazement at the operation of the mind which would lead him to attempt to gain a little false glory for the Government to which he belongs, by the boast that they have accommodated a matter which was likely to produce actual war in a few hours. "War" and "hours" were the terms used by the right hon. Gentleman. He did not talk of an interruption of the friendly relations existing between the two countries, but he spoke of actual war—war with our ally—and that within a space to be counted, not by days or weeks, but by hours. If such a statement was injurious and injudicious as regards the affairs of this country, how injurious and injudicious was it as regarded our relations with France? The statement of the right hon. Gentleman accused the Government and Sovereign of France of a covert intention to attack this country without any previous announcement or previously declared quarrel; and in imputing such an intention to the Government of France it appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman imputes something very like a disloyal and treacherous proceeding. I say, therefore, that I call upon the right hon. Gentleman to explain or to retract the assertion which he then made. I again affirm—speaking from the knowledge of the state of affairs which I possessed as being then the First Lord of the Treasury, that when we went out of office there was nothing that indicated, in our opinion, any probability of any serious dispute, much less any probability of being, as described by the right hon. Gentleman, on the very verge of war. There may have been differences between the two Governments after the present Government acceded to office; there may have been possibly charges, and complaints on the part of the French Government of engagements evaded and of promises broken. That I know nothing about. It may be so, and, for all I know, the imminence of war pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, and which he sought to charge on our administration, may have arisen from circumstances which have occurred since the present Government came into office. Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman went on in that boasting speech to allude to the case of the Cagliari, and he took credit to the present Government for having rescued two fellow-countrymen from the dungeons in which they were immured, and for having brought them in triumph to this country. Now, as regards one of those men, he had been set free and handed over to the custody and care of the British Consul at Naples before the change of Ministry took place, and both had been rescued from the dungeons which they previously occupied, and placed in a comparatively light place of confinement before the present Government came into office; and, so far from the late Government having neglected the two English engineers, the papers which have been laid upon the table will show that there was upon the part of the late Government, for a considerable period, incessant attention bestowed upon the subject. If the two engineers were brought back in the triumphant manner described by the right hon. Gentleman, I should have expected him, in reply to the question which was put to him a short time ago, to state that those two men had been injuriously and unjustly treated, and that in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown compensation might be claimed—that a claim had been made for compensation, and that compensation had been triumphantly obtained. Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—and the greater part of his speech was an attack upon the late Government—that there was an intrigue carried on—I presume he meant by us—to bring about a war between Naples and Sardinia, which, he said, would light a flame of war over Europe. Now, I utterly deny that there is any truth in that assertion, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will state the grounds upon which it was made. The right hon. Gentleman boasted, also, that he has performed wonders in finance, that there was an immense deficit—millions of deficit, and that he has got rid of that immense deficit simply by placing a small tax upon Irish spirits and a penny stamp upon bankers' cheques. Why, Sir, if an immense deficit can be got rid of by such means the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer must be a much easier one than is generally supposed. Sir, for my own part, I ant afraid that the Government have only postponed the evil day. They have only postponed the consideration of that which they were afraid to meet, and have thrown upon other years those difficulties which they themselves shrank from encountering; and, so far from that being a subject for boasting, I believe that if it be the lot of the present Government to bring forward a Budget next year—as they appear to anticipate will be the case—the crime will bear its own punishment with it and they will rue the day when they adopted so easy an adjustment of a difficult financial question. The next point upon which the right hon. Gentleman applauded himself and his colleagues and cast contumely upon us, was India. The right hon. Gentleman said that our policy was one of unmitigated vengeance and general massacre—not one of mitigated punishment and discriminating amnesty. I may appeal to the words which I myself uttered many months ago as indicating the policy which we had recommended to Viscount Canning, and which I had no doubt he was about to follow. I stated in November, at a public meeting, not of the same description as that of Wednesday, but at which I trust I was more guarded than the right hon. Gentleman—I stated that the policy of Viscount Canning would be to punish the guilty, to spare the innocent, and reward the deserving. Now, that is the policy by which we stand—not a policy of general massacre or unmitigated vengeance. It is, therefore, Sir, a libel on the last Government, and also on Viscount Canning, to accuse either us or him of having intended to act on the principle of unmitigated vengeance and general massacre. But the right hon. Gentleman said that they were going to rebuild and reconstruct our Indian empire on a sure foundation; and the method by which that end was to be pursued was by the sending forth of a missive, to be published to the world, here and to all the nations of India, proclaiming principles which tend to the dismemberment of that empire—principles which, if acted upon as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman's speech, would necessarily lead to that disastrous result, and the first object aimed at in the enunciation of which was to degrade the Governor General and deprive him of the power to exercise his high functions. And this is what the right hon. Gentleman calls the reconstruction of our Indian empire! Why, this would be as if a man called upon to reconstruct a spacious mansion were to commence by pulling it down in order to build a bridge. The principles of the right hon. Gentleman would drive us back to Calcutta, and the days when we had but a few small factories on the banks of the Hooghly. And this, he says, would increase our power and our greatness in India. But the right hon. Gentleman, being in a mood to spare nobody, was, I think, also somewhat severe upon his own colleagues. He boasted of the manner in which the late debate had been conducted. He said, in fact, that the only speeches which he deemed worth mentioning were those made by persons unconnected with the Government. Anybody who heard that statement, and was unaware of what had taken place in our recent debates on Indian affairs, must have inferred that no Member of the Government had said a word, that their whole defence had been left to independent Members of the Government having been afraid to say anything for themselves. Did the right hon. Gentleman forget that there were four speeches—five, indeed—made from the Treasury bench, and all of them remarkable? Did he forget the speech of the Solicitor General, which certainly I shall not easily forget—a speech of great ability and great promise—one that, even though made against us, I was glad to hear delivered by any Member of this House, and which proves the hon. and learned Gentleman to be a distinguished ornament of Parliament. It was, indeed, as my noble Friend observed, a speech somewhat forensic in character—that is to say, it was the speech of an advocate speaking from his brief, and who would have been able to make out as good a case on the other side if a brief of an opposite kind had been given to him. But it was an admirable speech, nevertheless, and did not deserve to be passed over in the manner it was by the right hon. Gentleman. We had also a speech from the Attorney General for Ireland, marked by the impassioned eloquence and declamatory power with which that right hon. Gentleman always addresses us, and though, indeed, it was not quite so elaborate in argument as that of the Solicitor General, it was still a speech, made as it was in defence of the Government, which was entitled to some notice on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. Next, we had a speech of considerable ability from the Under Secretary for the Home Department, and then another from Lord Stanley, a Cabinet Minister, who has now been appointed as head of the India Board. The address delivered by that noble Lord was a calm, sober argument, and one which I think ought not to have been overlooked as if it were nothing at all. It is true that the other Members of the Cabinet—the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and their other colleagues—very prudently held their tongues, probably feeling that "the least said the soonest mended." They accordingly left their defence to those who could know little about the matter, who were not in the secrets of the Government, who were not responsible, and might therefore assert anything that came into their heads. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, as far as regards the Indian question, accused us of that of which we were not guilty, and was a speech of which not only we have a right to complain, but which, I think, entitles his colleagues in and out of the Cabinet to protest against the slight thus put upon them. The right hon. Gentleman then takes a review of the relative position of parties on both sides of this House, and he makes what he supposes to be a most overpowering charge. He says there now exists in this country that which has not been witnessed since the days of Charles II.—namely, a cabal—a cabal sitting on the Opposition benches of this House, which has conceived the most extraordinary, the most unjustifiable, and most unheard of intention to dispossess the present Government and take their places. Well, the word cabal only means a body consisting of a small number, and I believe the grammatical distinction between a cabal and a party is merely the distinction between a few and many. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman says we are "a cabal" he thinks we are the few, and he calls himself, I presume, the head of "a party" because they have the majority in this House. But, surely, if we on this side are deserving of the epithet "cabal" because we are few, the right hon. Gentleman might be sparing in his invectives, inasmuch as the few cannot overpower the many, and their designs, however unheard-of, alarming, or mischievous, must, by reason of their numerical inferiority, be most difficult to carry into execution. But when he complains that his Government has, ever since it was established, been the object of incessant attacks and intrigues, I should like to know to whom he alludes. He cannot make this charge against us who sit on these benches. Why, Sir, we have acted with uncommon forbearance. And it has come to my ear that many of those who wish us well have thought that we were neglecting and shrinking from the discharge of our duty in allowing the Government to go on from blunder to blunder, proving every day their incapacity to govern; and we have been supposed to be backward in the exercise of our constitutional functions in not calling the House to affirm that the present Government are not deserving of the confidence of the country. Sir, we did not pursue any such course. But when a case arose which appeared to us to involve principles of the utmost danger to the dominions of the Crown, and to imply an offence on the part of the Ministers of the Queen, which, as was well stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bethell), might in former times have subjected a Government to impeachment—principles, I say, which tended to disturb out possessions in India, to encourage the revolters, and to throw dismay and discouragement among the ranks of our troops, then we thought the moment had come—and I should have been ashamed of myself if I had not stepped forward on such an occasion—to endeavour to elicit the opinion of this House on conduct so discreditable to a Government, and so perilous to the empire which it was their duty to uphold. But is it, then, so factious a proceeding within three mouths after the accession of a Ministry to propose a vote of censure against them? If the right hon. Gentleman had consulted the records of a former Session he would have found that others have been guilty of the same "factious" conduct; for within three months of the formation of the last Government votes of censure upon them were proposed, and those votes were repeatedly introduced by what, if paucity of numbers constistutes a cabal, I may fairly call a cabal of that day, whose obvious purpose was to turn out the Government of the Queen. But we are told that this cabal is uncommonly well informed, especially in regard to foreign affairs. Now, I cannot retort that charge upon the present Ministry. I acquit them entirely of any such imputation. But when the right hon. Gentleman talks of the cabal having abundant resources at their command, which they apply in an unscrupulous manner, and says that they obtain information by unconstitutional means, I should like him to have the goodness to specify the grounds on which he makes this assertion. No doubt we do know a good deal about foreign affairs, and we should be highly reprehensible if we did not. Having been in office for a considerable time, and having had to deal with foreign affairs of great importance, we necessarily know a good deal of those foreign affairs; and, let me add, we know a little about domestic matters too. Now, Sir, I should like to know who those foreign intriguers are who are conspiring with us for the purpose of dispossessing hon. Gentlemen opposite from their seats. I think I am entitled to say, that had we brought the country to the verge of war it is not likely that the representatives of any foreign Government would be so anxious to restore us to power; they would be more likely to wish to continue the more peaceful Administration—as the right hon. Gentleman represents it—which now holds the reins of office. Then, Sir, I entirely repudiate the charge of the right hon. Gentleman, that we are conspiring to obtain information on foreign affairs by unconstitutional means, and that we are conducting ourselves in a manner different from that which should actuate the movements of public men. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to attack the press. I will leave the press to defend itself—it is quite able to do so; but when the right hon. Gentleman implies that some candidates for office are contributors to the press, I should like to know whether there are not hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who have contributed to "the Press," and that for the purpose of bringing themselves into office. These, Sir, are the grounds on which I object to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I deny altogether, so far as my knowledge goes, the assertion that there was any imminent probability of war between England and France at the time we quitted office. I repeat that the relations between the two countries were most friendly, intimate, and confidential, and that so far as we are concerned the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman is entirely without foundation. Then, Sir, with reference to the assertion that we are a cabal, if the use of that term implies that we are few in number, I have only to say that the result will yet show which of the two sides has the greater number of supporters in the House. But I deny entirely, if we are a cabal in the sense of a party aiming at upsetting the Government, that that is a novel proceeding. To say that there has never been a cabal since the days of Charles II., having for its object to upset a Government, is an assertion I did not expect to hear from a quarter so enlightened. Such a thing is no novelty; but I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that which is a novelty. It is not that there should be a cabal in Opposition, but that there should be a factious Government—that there should be a Government carrying into office all the factious feelings by which they were actuated in Opposition—a Government which publishes libels on the former advisers of the Crown, and on acts of the Crown carried out on the advice of those former Ministers—a factious Government that sends forth and publishes not only to Europe, but to India, principles which, if carried into execution, would lead to the dismemberment of our Indian empire—a Government which, whatever motives it may have been actuated by, publishes to the world a most affronting insult to the highest officer of the Crown in any of Her Majesty's dominions.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

What has taken place on this subject reminds me of an unfortunate circumstance that has recently happened in that country which has been so much the subject of the remarks of the noble Lord. A gentleman of letters, having done, or said, or written, something that offended a very powerful body, was called to account by a member of it. He met his opponent without any hesitation, and in the first encounter conducted himself with fair repute and success. But no sooner was this affair over than another gentleman was sent for—one whose fierce mien and formidable reputation were such that his friends thought he would put the matter right. He, too, demands satisfaction, and is accompanied by a considerable body of other gentlemen who seem by their appearance to signify that if the second assailant is not more successful than the first, then they will find others to succeed him. In short, having some how or other got into a scrape, they mean if they cannot fight it out to bully out of it by numbers. I am sure the House will understand that I use the word "bully" only with reference to the illustrative instance. I cannot from all this discussion believe that my fate in this second encounter will be as unfortunate as that of the gentleman to whom I have referred, because the noble Lord, although he has come up from the country to make his assault has in no degree strengthened the cause that was more temperately urged on Friday by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. In the first place, let me remove the misconception on which the principal argument of the noble Lord rests. The noble Lord has based his argument on an entire misquotation of what I said in Buckinghamshire—though, of course, I acquit the noble Lord of any intentional unfairness,—for I never said that when we came into office this country was on the verge of war. What I did say was, that war might have taken place at the end, not of weeks or days, but of hours. The inference of the noble Lord that by that statement I meant to convey the impression that the late Government had left the affairs of the nation in such a state that war was inevitable, is a fallacious one. I freely admit all that the noble Lord says when he states that on the retirement of the late Government there was no prospect of a war with France. Of course, when there was a Government which had avoided answering a despatch which it was supposed conveyed an insult to the people of this country—when there was a Government which not only declined answering that supposed insulting despatch, but which also strove to introduce a Bill into this House to change the laws of England, it was very easy for such a Government to maintain a good understanding with the Power whose purposes (that Power being at the time entirely misguided) it was then prepared to fulfil. But the moment a change of Government took place —the moment there was an Administration whose duty it was in deference to the Resolution of this House to answer in a becoming manner the supposed insulting despatch, and to declare to France that they were not prepared at its instance to recommend any change in the laws of England, the House will at once see that the issues of peace or war became imminent. The change of Ministry must have been annoying to the Government of France, although after all it was not so much a question between the two Governments, as between the irritated feelings of two proud nations; and those who are aware of the circumstances know that the expressions which I used in Buckinghamshire were not indifferent, or inaccurate, or exaggerated expressions, but that they were perfectly justified by all that occurred; that they were even historic expressions, which could be used at this time, not only without giving offence to France, but that, on the contrary, they had reference to circumstances which most completely contrasted with the state of things that now exists. And how did the Government act in the difficult position in which it was placed? Called on to pursue a policy exactly contrary to that which the noble Lord says was the security for a good understanding between the two countries, Her Majesty's Ministers, trusting to the great sagacity and natural good disposition of the eminent person who rules France, believed that if the whole circumstances of the case were brought before his unerring judgment, and relieved from the influence of those parasites in both countries who had induced him to believe that the people of England would submit to a change in their laws, he would decide upon the matter in a way conducive to the happiness of both countries. That confidence in him has not been vain. From that moment the relations between the two countries assumed, week by week and month by month, a more satisfactory and cordial character; and I say again, that under these circumstances I was justified in the statement I made—that we maintained the honour of the country, the blessings of peace, and that inestimable alliance on which the civilization of Europe depends. Therefore, all the observations of the noble Lord to prove that the late Government of the Queen did not leave this country on the eve of a war are founded on a fallacy. I will admit, for the sake of argument, the whole case of the noble Lord. I will admit, to use his own expression, that there was nothing when he went out of office that threatened war between the two countries; but the condition of peace, in my opinion, in the opinion of this country, and of the House, was a shameful condition, the pursuance of a truckling policy, which was not only not for the honour of this country, but was clearly against the interest of France, and the advantage of our faithful ally. And I believe that no person was more convinced of that than the Emperor himself, and that was proved by the manner in which the Emperor and his Ministers received the news of the trial of Bernard in this country. His Majesty felt, then, that the Ministers of this country having declared frankly and fully the conditions on which the relations of the two countries should be maintained had acted loyally, and that there had been a faithful administration of justice; and although the result might be mortifying and disappointing, yet it never became a source of misunderstanding or coldness between the two countries. His Majesty expressed, in a manner that did him the greatest honour, his conviction that the law of England had been faithfully appealed to and administered in his own case. Well, then, I was justified in stating that we had, in unison with the Parliament of this kingdom, vindicated and maintained the honour of this country, and had not forfeited that alliance which, I am proud and happy to say, now exists with cordial feelings on both sides, but which, according to the noble Lord, could not be preserved except by a policy that this country repudiated. The noble Lord has, I will not say per- verted, because he has completely misunderstood the statement I made when he says that I wished to convey the impression that there was a danger of France suddenly attacking us. I said no such thing. I only meant to state a fact—a notorious fact, and not a Cabinet secret—that within twenty-four hours the policy of England with regard to France was changed; that it was no longer a truckling, a servile, and a disgraceful policy that was pursued—yet a policy which seemed to flatter the feelings of the Emperor and of the people of France—and that there was, therefore, a danger that in a moment war might have taken place. I say that the conduct and fairness of Her Majesty's Government, and the wisdom and magnanimity of the Emperor, prevented such a result, and that these qualities render the alliance on both sides as firm and cordial as any that ever existed. Why should I shrink from saying that before a meeting of my countrymen and constituents? I should have been ashamed if I had been afraid of making that declaration to my constituents. The noble Lord, however, declares it to have been injudicious and improper; but these are epithets to which I might apply a different meaning. It is easy to say that they are injudicious and improper, but I might retaliate to-night and say that his interference is injudicious and improper. He says that it was a statement calculated to affect the public credit of this country. I can only say that public credit is a much more delicate thing than I have any idea of if a statement such as I have vindicated to-night could have the slightest effect upon it. What affects the credit of the country is a secret and servile policy pursued to please some foreign Power, in total ignorance of the character of this nation, and ending by disappointing that Power, and baffling any wishes that we had improperly allowed it to cherish. That is the way to injure the public credit of the country. The noble Lord then travels to Italy. He is still hankering on the case of the Cagliari—that case on which the noble Lord was so reserved and so silent when he sat on these benches. The noble Lord grudges us the satisfaction of freeing two of our countrymen whom he had permitted to remain for long months unnoticed in prison, and at last, ashamed of himself and his colleagues, makes an inaccurate statement to-night, which I defy him to prove, by which he wishes to convey that it is not true that these two unfortunate Englishmen had been freed by our efforts and influence. The noble Lord is entirely wrong. Both of our countrymen were prisoners when we acceded to office, and the first thing we did was to telegraph to Mr. Lyons, and to send him to Naples to interfere on their behalf. The noble Lord says that Watt was already freed, and under the care of the English Consul. But how was he freed, and why, and under what conditions? That unfortunate man, in consequence of the treatment he had received and the neglect of the noble Lord and his Government—the reason of that unfortunate man, I say, was affected, and upon the application of the English Consul, who behaved throughout with spirit and humanity, he was permitted to leave his dungeon for an hospital or lazaretto; but on what terms? Why, the moment his reason returned he was to come back to his imprisonment to meet his trial. As I have already had the satisfaction of announcing to-night, in answer to an hon. and learned Gentleman, these English subjects have left their prison without trial and free. They have quitted Naples without conditions, and yet the noble Lord has attempted to state that one of these persons owes his liberation to the influence of the late Government. Well, I make but one remark on the statement of the noble Lord that I have declared an attempt has been made by certain persons to excite war between Naples and Sardinia. The noble Lord has taken to himself and his colleagues every observation I made in Buckinghamshire, although many of the noble Lord's statements are very inauthentic in many particulars. That there has been an attempt to embroil Italy and to take advantage of this unfortunate occurrence to excite war between these two Italian States; that the consequences of such a war, if those attempts should succeed, would be to put Europe in a flame, and would be fatal to that constitutional cause in Sardinia in which we are so much interested; that those who have joined in these attempts have believed that they would prove inconvenient and injurious to the existing Government—these are my firm convictions, and they are founded upon no slight evidence. The noble Lord, in his discursive range, then goes into the question of finance. He appears to be sore that the measures recommended by Her Majesty's Government should be affirmed by this House, and passed without difficulty. The noble Lord appears disposed to put in opposition to the measures of the Government the Budget prepared, but, unhappily, not brought forward by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the great feature of which would seem to be a large increase in the income tax. That appears to be acknowledged by the noble Lord. ["No!"] It was acknowledged by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I thought the noble Lord as the head of the Treasury might be responsible for that policy. The noble Lord then flies to India, and he repeats a charge which was not much insisted on by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and which is without foundation, that I said the policy of the late Government with respect to India was a policy of extermination. I am sorry that a speech made at a public dinner in the country should be analyzed in this manner in the House of Commons; but if any hon. Gentleman will consider in an unimpassioned spirit my observations delivered in Buckinghamshire he will find that by no possible logical construction can they be made to apply to any previous policy pursued by this country towards India. My observations were made to apply to a policy of confiscation and its consequences. Those consequences are vengeance, and if vengeance there must be massacre. I say that confiscation, vengeance, and massacre are the gradations of a climax which led me to prefer the superior policy of mercy. That is the statement I made. I said that you have to choose between the policy that we recommend—the policy of amnesty, of religious toleration, and respect for property—and a policy based on Viscount Canning's Proclamation, which, being one of confiscation, must lead to consequences exactly the contrary. That is all I said, and I entirely adhere to it. But the noble Lord having touched upon France very fully, with a series of observations which I have shown are all founded upon misconception, having touched upon the case of the Cagliari, with a statement which I have shown to the House is entirely unfounded, having touched upon the question of India, in which I have shown to the House that the inferences he has drawn are entirely unauthorized, comes to what I believe is the real and the main cause of this adjourned debate on the Buckinghamshire speech. The noble Lord says I have called the Opposition a cabal, and that cabal is not an appropriate term, irrespective of other objections, because cabal means a very limited body of individuals. I should not care to quarrel with the definition of the noble Lord, because it prevents the course of public business, but that I am unwilling to assent to his definition. By cabal I understand is meant a secret society of conspirators—a secret and unknown society, and, therefore, I need not assure the House of that of which it is perfectly aware, that when I talk of a cabal I am not talking of an Opposition, or a party in the House of Commons, whose whole conduct is public, whose numbers, whatever may be their opinions, must be considerable, and whose behaviour within these walls must be attended with circumstances totally discordant with the popular idea of a cabal. And I am as certain as that I am addressing you now, Sir, that I never in Buckinghamshire talked of a cabal in the House of Commons, or used a word by which any hon. Member of the House of Commons might ever consider that he was a Member of a cabal. There may be Members of the cabal in the House of Commons. I am sure there are members of the cabal who are not members of the House of Commons, and therefore I protest against the noble Lord taking up the observations which I made on the cabal, and wishing to insinuate to the House of Commons that in using that word I intended to describe what must be a very considerable number of its Members. I want to know from the noble Lord what is the real meaning of these repeated movements. I want to know whether we are again to have a discussion on the Buckinghamshire speech—whether the debate is again to be adjourned. I take it for granted there will be no division. Divisions are no longer the fashion. So far as I could collect the meaning of the noble Lord the Member for the City, the object of his demonstration on Friday night was to put the great Liberal party of the country in an intelligible position, as opposed to Her Majesty's Government. That is a legitimate and constitutional course. If the noble Lord the Member for the city is a Liberal—if he sympathises with the great Liberal party—I think the noble Lord perfectly justified in showing to the country that the great liberal party with which he is connected entertain certain opinions, and in contrasting these opinions with the opinions of those who occupy the Treasury bench and this side of the House. But I am bound to say that I do not see how that clearly applies to the noble Lord who has addressed us to-night, because, so far as I can form an opinion, I cannot understand that there is any thought, sentiment, or interest which can identify the noble Lord and the late Government with the great Liberal party. I take the two nights, Friday and Monday, because it is only by looking at the combined action that I can understand the scope of all these movements. I understand there arc great questions which are to be brought forward and which will test the character of parties in this House. The great Liberal party is in favour of vote by ballot. Is Her Majesty's late Government in favour of vote by ballot? The great Liberal party is in favour of the total abolition of church rates. Is Her Majesty's late Government in favour of the total abolition of church rates? The great Liberal party is in favour of that Bill of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. L. King), to discuss which I appointed this evening. Is Her Majesty's late Government in favour of the hon. Member's new franchise? All that we know from the past is, that they opposed it on principle and offered grave arguments to influence the opinion of the House against it. There is another subject upon which the great Liberal party entertains strong views, and that is the subject of economy. Was Her Majesty's late Government in favour of economy? It is my painful duty every day of my life to be witness of the expenditure of the late Government, and a more extravagant, reckless, and profuse expenditure I never saw. The great Liberal party is in favour of publicity. We are always hearing that they look upon publicity in transactions of State as of great importance. There never was a Government which exercised such reserve on affairs of State as Her Majesty's late Government, and the only charge ever urged against the present Government was, that they did produce a public document. The only charge against us was, that we published a despatch. No one can ever say that we intercepted a letter. There is one other subject upon which the Liberal party have always shown great interest, and that is upon the conduct of the executive Government. They have always demanded that the conduct of the executive Government should be temperate and moderate. But what has been the conduct of the late executive? They were the first Government which carried on wars without the sanction of Parliament, and if we look to the other great branch of the executive—namely, the exercise of patronage—is it not notorious that the exercise of patronage outraged all the sense and spirit of the country? Well then, Sir, I want to know what is the use of these manœuvres—I will not say of a cabal. I never supposed that the cabal sat in this House, although very possibly there are many in this House who knowingly are influenced by the councils of the cabal. But what I want to know is, what is the meaning of all these operations?—because it seems impossible, so far as I can form an opinion, that the old delusion can again be revived, that there is the slightest connection or sympathy between the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton and his friends and the great Liberal party. Upon every subject there is total want of sympathy—there is total dissimilarity of views. So far as I am personally concerned, I am really quite regardless if every time we go into Committee of Supply a late Cabinet Minister, or those who think they may be Cabinet Ministers, rise and demand explanations of the observations which I made to my honest constituents. The noble Lord is quite horrified that I should have spoken in a booth on matters of State policy. Special announcements on matters of State—on matters of peace and war—should be made at a carousal in a club-room, such as we may remember, when you invite Her Majesty's officers who are to undertake operations of warfare, and when Prime Ministers take the chair, and in what is styled—though not by me—an inebriated assembly announce for the first time to the country that a great military expedition is to be undertaken. But, Sir, although I may not escape from this criticism night after night (and I am perfectly prepared to meet any of those who may attack me), what must the country think—when time is so precious, when the public business is so backward, and when affairs in this House are so urgent—of the conduct of the noble Lord and his co-managers in this operation? What must they think of these attempts night after night to prevent the progress of public business, and to give vent to all these unavailing expressions of discontent with the position they now occupy? I would put it to the noble Lord to contrast his position at the present moment with what it was three months ago—even after that great disaster which deprived his Sovereign and his country of his services as Prime Minister. He entered the House proud, and avowedly proud, of being tile chief of what was considered a great and even overwhelming Opposition. However illusive the expectation, there was a general idea that he possessed great power, which would be irresistible when he exercised it, and that, although for a moment he might condescend to sit is the cold shade of Opposition, he could at any instant resume power and place, and be the real arbiter of the destinies of his country. What has made the difference between the present position of the noble Lord and that which he occupied three months ago? I lay no claim for the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in that respect. I will say here, as I said in that place which has been the subject of criticism, that we have sedulously, diligently, and with devotion attempted to do our duty; but I cannot suppose that anything we have done has effected this great change in the position of the avowed Opposition. It is rather the sense of the country that their conduct has been animated by feelings which are not respected by the community. The noble Lord complains that they have been called a "cabal." What I call a cabal is a body of men, whether it be in this House or in another house—either a private house, or a house devoted to affairs of State—banded together, not to carry out a policy, not to recommend by their wisdom and their eloquence measures calculated to win the approving sympathy of the community, but uniting all their resources, their abilities, and their varied influence—for what?—to upset the Queen's Government, without even in so doing declaring any policy of their own, or giving any further clue to their opinions than this—that the first article of their creed is place. It is this conduct which has made the great body of the people of this country look with aversion on these machinations and manœuvres,and has gained for Her Majesty's Government the sympathy of all honourable and generous minds. If I wanted to confirm the Government in power—if I were anxious to assure a longer tenure of office, I should beg the noble Lords to continue their practices. I should be delighted, night after night, if they called on me in this manner to defend statements made to my constituents, not one word of which I retract, and which I made with that due thought which such statements required. I should wish the noble Lord to continue this course, for I am quite certain that, whatever difference of opinion there may be in this House, or in England, between the great Conservative party and the great Liberal party, there is this one point of union between us—that we are equally resolved both in this House and throughout the country no longer to be made the tools or the victims of an obsolete oligarchy.

SIR GEORGE GREY

The right hon. Gentleman, in the speech which he has just made, has complained over and over again of the unfair proceeding of my noble Friend tie Member for Tiverton in calling upon him for an explanation of certain passages of the remarkable speech addressed by him to his constituents, on the ground that in my noble Friend's absence the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had already called upon him for a similar explanation. But my noble Friend, as the head of the late Government, was bound to take the very first opportunity in his power to demand from the right hon. Gentleman an explanation of those gross imputations Of misconduct which he made against the late Government, which were totally unjustifiable, and which I venture to say were such as no man in the position of the right bon. Gentleman ever made before against his predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman asks how often are these demands for explanation to be renewed—how often, I ask, is the right hon. Gentleman to give explanations in reply to these demands totally at variance with each other? How will his "honest" constituents be surprised—and I suppose he used the word in the sense of "simple"—when they read the gloss which he has to-night put upon the words he addressed to them the other day. It is indeed a humiliating spectacle to see the leader of the House of Commons driven to explain away indiscretions by making statements in his place in Parliament, which are wholly incompatible and inconsistent with each other. The passage in the speech is this:— It is well for us now to think lightly of perils we have passed through, and 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 a question, not 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. That is from The Times' report, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not deny its accuracy. [The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Hear! hear!] When questioned on Friday night, the right hon. Gentleman in substance repeated that statement, and when called on for the grounds on which he made it, he referred to an answer given in this House by my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton just before leaving office, and also to the subsequent departure of the French Ambassador from this country, which took place after the present Government came into office. But to-night the right hon. Gentleman says be gives an unqualified adherence to all that has fallen from my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton; he allows that there was no question of war or peace when the present Government acceded to office; and he tells us that it was only after they were in power, when they came to deal with the question which had been left to them by their predecessors, that any danger arose. He says too, that those dangers arose from the truckling policy which We had pursued, and, forgetting that he and his friends originally supported that policy, and that the right hon. Gentleman, the present Home Secretary, repeatedly declared his adherence to it not only when first the Conspiracy Bill was introduced, but also in the debate on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton, he now turns round and endeavours to gain popularity in the country by vituperating that policy. At all events, we have now got a statement which I hope will reach the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman, and it establishes beyond doubt that the "alleged imminent" danger of war does not refer to any period when the late Government was in office, but entirely and exclusively to the time which has elapsed since the affairs of the country have been in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. With regard to India, I must remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman has reiterated in substance the charge which particularly affects Viscount Canning, if it affects anybody—the advocacy of massacre and indiscriminate vengeance. A few nights ago the right hon. Gentleman, happy to escape from a division, adopting a different tone, took care to inform the House that the Government had telegraphed to Viscount Canning assurances of their firm support and unqualified approbation. The present Government proclaim that they have a policy with regard to India, and yet we find them one day giving their unqualified support to Viscount Canning, and a day or two after one of its leading members telling his constituents that this distinguished nobleman, invested with all the authority of the Crown in India, is an advocate of indiscriminate massacre and vengeance. Comparing dates, I presume the Government telegraphed to Malta to catch the Indian mail, in order that the same post which took out the news of the publication of the despatch of Lord Ellenborough should also carry out the intelligence of the Earl of Ellenborough's retirement, in the hope that one piece of news might counteract the mischief likely to be caused by the other. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to gain a little temporary popularity for the Government by traducing and misrepresenting the motives of one of the most distinguished representatives of the Crown. What effect these attacks may have upon Lord Canning I do not know, but I hope that he will prove himself superior to any personal considerations, and that, without departing from the principles on which he has ever acted, of stern justice combined with equity and mercy, he will continue to discharge his duty as he has hitherto done, regardless of those personal insults and affronts which have been heaped upon him. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that every day he found fresh evidences of the fact that the expenditure of the late Government had been characterized by reckless and wanton extravagance, and he took credit to the present Government for advocating economy in opposition to wasteful and reckless expenditure. But if we were wasteful and reckless, what has been the course taken by the present Government? They did not hastily adopt our Estimates as we left them. They very properly asked for time to consider them; they took in the first instance Votes upon account, and then they came down upon their own responsibility and asked the House to agree to our Estimates. And by how much have they reduced those Estimates? They admitted that the Votes for the Army and the Navy—those two great branches of expenditure—had been prepared with a careful regard to efficiency, and with economy. Only a few thousand pounds were struck off those Estimates, and even that was not done without an intimation that it might be necessary during the present Session to ask for a supplementary Vote to replace the items which they had struck out. If, then, the Estimates of the late Government were characterized by reckless and wasteful extravagance, how can the right hon. Gentleman ask the House to go into Committee of Supply upon Estimates which are substantially the same as those which were prepared by the late Government? The truth is, that the right hon. Gentleman has been so long in Opposition that he has acquired the habit of spreading broadcast charges in high-sounding language which he either shrinks from proving, or is unable to sustain; but I trust that what has now taken place will furnish a lesson to the right hon. Gentleman, and teach him to act with more dignity and with more caution than he has yet displayed in the high office which he holds, and that he will think, not so much of catching the transient popularity of the hour, or of hurling a sarcasm at a political opponent, but that he will think, act, and speak as a statesman, for by so doing he will be far more likely to gain the confidence of the majority of this House than by adopting the course which has hitherto marked his career.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

I think that the House will feel that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has rather endeavoured to make up by vehemence of manner for lack of argument in his speech. But I do not rise so much to reply to the right hon. Gentleman as to enter my protest against what appears to me to be a most unpardonable waste of public time. After having consumed a whole week of public time in that faction fight, the termination of which afforded another remarkable instance of how very short and rapid is the descent from the sublime to the ridiculous—after having so wasted a week, and having found how little effect their own speeches produced, hon. Gentlemen opposite are now endeavouring to extract some present advantage front attacking the speech of my right hon. Friend delivered to his constituents in Buckinghamshire. I cannot feel surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be a little dissatisfied with that speech of my right hon. Friend; for I believe that it has enlisted more public sympathy, and has excited public feeling more than any speech which has been delivered for a long period of time. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton and the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken very justly characterized that speech as a remarkable one, and no doubt they deeply regret the effect which it has produced upon the country. I must protest, however, against what I consider to be a most unfair misrepresentation of the language which was held by my right hon. Friend, both on Friday night in reply to the noble Lord the Member for London, and to-night in reply to the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. I deny that my right hon. Friend is open to the imputation which has been cast upon him, with equal severity and injustice, of having held one language last Friday and another to-night—of having on Friday given one explanation of that passage which has so offended hon. Gentlemen opposite, and of having to-night given a totally different explanation. I contend that there is no difference in the language of my right hon. Friend. He has stated to-night that he adheres to all that he said at Slough. He stated—I do not quote the precise words, but he stated in substance—that when the present Government succeeded to office the disturbance of peaceful relations between this country and France was a question not of weeks or of days, but of hours. That is a form of expression which we all of us understand; and I have no hesitation in distinctly stating here my belief, from the knowledge which I, as a Minister of the Crown, have had of those relations, that those words of my right hon. Friend were substantially correct. It will not do, then, for hon. Gentlemen opposite, disappointed in the result of a party attack, and anxious in the bitterness of their disappointment to try and snatch a party advantage, to lay hold of a phrase, and to quibble upon a word. To say that a thing was a question, not of weeks or of days, but of hours, is a common expression to imply that it was imminent, and the fair and candid interpretation to be placed upon that expression of my right hon. Friend was that we succeeded to the Government under circumstances which made war imminent. We do not shrink from that statement, and I challenge the noble Lord to disprove it if he can. I appeal with confidence to the language of the noble Lord himself. What did he say when he moved the Conspiracy Bill? I will not occupy the House with quotations; but what, I ask, was the tone of the noble Lord? He told us in plain language that the Government offered that atonement to France for what had taken place in this country, and he said, "If you do not pass this Bill you endanger the alliance between the two countries." The noble Lord complained to-night of the remark of my right hon. Friend on Friday upon the answer which the noble Lord gave to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Griffith); but I maintain that the same tone pervaded that answer as pervaded the speech to which I have just referred—"You must be cautious as to the language you hold in this House; our relations with France are in a difficult position, and any accidental or unguarded language may endanger the alliance." What was the next occasion on which the noble Lord addressed the House? On that memorable night when he was defeated on the division and was obliged to relinquish office, he then distinctly held the same language in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford—that so critical was the state of our relations with France that unless that Bill were passed there would be a great danger of their interruption. Again, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under the late Government, "in another place," in more guarded language I admit, but in substance, gave expression to precisely the same sentiment. Further, I appeal to the language of a State paper, which I am sure no one can have forgotten—the despatch which Earl Cowley sent home from Paris after the division, in which he referred to the irritated state of public feeling in France, to the necessity which there was for the most cautious conduct of affairs, and to the imminent danger of the interruption of the friendly relations between the two countries. I allude to this state of feeling without imputing the slightest blame either to France or England. There is no doubt that at that moment it was of the most dangerous character, and that great irritation prevailed; and I say this the more openly because I think that that feeling was honourable to two great and powerful nations. The French people had seen their Sovereign on the point of being massacred by a most atrocious attempt upon his life. They were ignorant of the laws of our country; they found that that nefarious attempt had been concocted in England, and, therefore, their indignation naturally was directed against England; on the other hand when the noble Lord brought forward his Conspiracy Bill a feeling no less strong was excited in England that the Government should introduce a Measure to alter the criminal law of England at the dictation of a foreign Power. Irritation was thus produced on both sides, and when it was at its highest, and after the noble Lord had given us those warnings to which I have adverted, the Government of the noble Lord was compelled to relinquish office. What was the line of policy that ought to have been pursued by the Government which succeeded that of the noble Lord? We could not outrage the public feeling of this country by persevering in that legislation. We were obliged to abandon the course taken by the late Government, which, rightly or wrongly, had the appearance of foreign dictation, and we were obliged to intimate to France that that was the line of policy we should adopt. There can be no doubt that it was to that period that my right hon. Friend referred and that the relations between the two countries were of the most critical nature, and that the continuance of those peaceful relations was strictly what my right hon. Friend called it, a question of hours and not of days. I am at liberty to state in confirmation of this view, and in direct contradiction of what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite, that upon more than one occasion the late French ambassador to this country, the Count do Persigny, did remonstrate upon the policy of this country, and did state in plain terms that if the policy of this country was not changed it would be impossible for the friendly relations between the two countries to continue. Under these circumstances is my right hon. Friend to be assailed for having taken credit to Her Majesty's Government for having put an end to this state of things—a state of things which I have not overdrawn or overstated in one single iota? Most cordially do I agree with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend this evening, for that dangerous state of things could only have been put an end to by the greatest caution, forbearance, and temper on both sides, and we should recognise distinctly that judgment, sagacity, and forbearance which have been so eminently displayed by our loyal and true ally the Emperor of the French, and owing to which that state of irritation which I have described has been most happily removed. I trust now that a better state of feeling exists, and that on both sides of the Channel the people of the two great nations feel that the prosperity not only of these two great nations but of Europe depends upon the maintenance of friendly relations between themselves. I must say, then, that I think we have great reason to complain of the exaggerations of the noble Lord to-night. The noble Lord has to-night very freely hurled imputations upon us. I beg to tell the noble Lord that he was wholly inaccurate, so far as I have been able to read, in his quotation of the speech of the Earl of Derby. He says the Earl of Derby paid a very high compliment to the late Government, of which the noble Lord was the head—that the satisfactory state in which things were when he took the reins of power was highly creditable to the late Government. The noble Lord evidently intended to draw a broad contrast between the language of the Earl of Derby and that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt the Earl of Derby did speak as he always speaks, in the spirit of a high-minded gentleman. When he came into office he gave credit to his predecessors for whatever was praiseworthy in their acts. But what was the passage to which the noble Lord referred? Why, it was a passage doing full credit to the condition of the army. The noble Earl said that he was rather anxious, considering the state of our foreign relations, with regard to the state of the army, and that he found it in a condition much better than he expected, the exact phrase being that he found it "numerically respectable." This passage, however, the noble Lord wishes us to understand was an explicit declaration that under the noble Lord's Government England was in a prosperous condition. Before I quit this reference to the noble Lord, I will venture to remind him that, so far as I recollect, the Earl of Derby paid no compliment to the late Government with respect to the state of our foreign relations. I will not detain the House longer. We have heard too much about my right hon. Friend's speech. I think we are wasting our time upon an after-dinner speech. To make attacks upon an accidental phrase in such a speech is really too paltry a mode of carrying on political warfare in this House. These attacks are so unworthy of the House that I will only venture to ask them whether they think the noble Lord is the man to rise and make complaints of harsh language on the part of political opponents. I beg to tell the noble Lord that I have not forgotten, and I doubt whether any of those with whom I have the honour of acting have forgotten, the language in which the noble Lord thought fit to indulge one year ago in his address to the electors of Tiverton. That was not an after-dinner speech. That was not an oration delivered in a moment of excitement. It was a letter deliberately written by the noble Lord in the retirement of his library. In that letter the noble Lord thought it becoming in him to say, that those who had divided against him on the China question had condescended, or were willing, I think, was the phrase, to make the degradation and humiliation of their country a stepping-stone to power. The noble Lord has this evening said, that part of the speech of my right hon. Friend at Slough was a libel upon the noble Lord's Government. I am not one of those who like to use hard, harsh expressions in this House—I think the noble Lord will admit that I am not in the habit of doing so—but I tell the noble Lord that I thought then, and think now, that that phrase was the most libellous and calumnious that ever was used by a public man against his political opponents. What was the course that we took? We did not interrupt the public business when Parliament reassembled, and complain of this or that phrase. It is very true that my noble Friend who is now at the head of the Foreign Department did write a very dignified rebuke of that insulting language; but when Parliament reassembled, we did not think it worth our notice. I think that the noble Lord, after he had used that language, was the last person who had any right to come down to this House and complain of such language as that of my right hon. Friend. I challenge and defy the noble Lord, if he searches the speech of my right hon. Friend from one end to the other, to find language half so offensive or so unjust as that expression in the noble Lord's letter on the China question. I hope that this subject may be allowed to drop. Our time has been too much wasted upon these party struggles—these mean scrambles for place—for they assume that character, and I hope for the credit of this House and of those who have taken part hi them, the public business may be allowed to proceed. I think we have this day received intelligence which ought to read us a lesson to address ourselves to the affairs of the country and not the affairs of faction. We have received to-day news from India which may well make us anxious. I do not say it ought to make us despond—God forbid! but it ought to make us consider deeply what is going on in India. No reflecting man can read those accounts without feeling that the time has come when those who are intrusted with the government of this country ought to address their undivided attention to public affairs. Let me say another thing. I believe there is not a heart in this country that does not ache at the intelligence we have received this day. Who does not feel that we have lost one of the noblest and bravest men that ever gave honour to this country? I think, therefore, we had better direct our attention to the present aspect of our country's affairs than waste our time in these party struggles. If we are not worthy of carrying on the affairs of the country, tell us so, and tell us so in unmistakeable language. We can then understand your course. But let the public affairs of this country be conducted by somebody. Let us go on in the performance of our duty, unimpeded by these factious struggles. If you have any charge to make against us, make it—bring our conduct fairly to the test of public opinion by moving a vote of want of confidence.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I cannot agree with the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that these discussions are a waste of time. I have always understood from the highest authority that ever ruled in this House that every Vote of Supply is a vote of credit to the Minister of the day. It is sometimes a permanent Vote of credit, and sometimes a provisional Vote of credit, and that I consider to be the character of the Votes of Supply since the present Ministers have assumed office. They are endeavouring, I will not say how successfully, to persuade two-thirds of the House of Commons whom they declare not to have been attached to them when they came into office, to place confidence in their measures and in their administration of public affairs. Now, if in the course of our proceedings a speech is made which assumes credit where credit is not due, which gives a varnished and falsely coloured view of public affairs, which casts imputations upon men who do not deserve them, and which finally gives a false account of that which is going on, I think it behoves those who may conceive themselves affected by such a statement to ask in this House, when a Vote of Supply is asked, what is the meaning of those representations, whether they can be explained, or whether they shall be retracted. Now, a speech of the right hon. Gentleman, whether made here or elsewhere, a speech which was given in all the public papers, and which, therefore, was published to the entire country, assumed that the question of peace or war between this country and France was a question not of days, but of hours, when the present Government came into office, but that the present Government by their wisdom averted the evil of war. That speech implied, moreover, that there was a cabal in existence which was endeavouring to blow up the flames of war between Sardinia and Naples, with the view of risking the peace of Europe and involving the whole of Europe in war for the party objects of those who endeavoured to create that war. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, stated in that speech that the present Government, instead of pursuing a policy of unmitigated vengeance and massacre in India, were laying the foundations of the peace and future prosperity of that country. I am not saying whether those statements were well or ill founded, but they naturally provoked those who differed from them, and denied their truth, to call upon the right hon. Gentleman to make some explanation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) says, "Why don't you sit down quietly under these imputations? Why don't you allow it to be said that you left the country in such a state that in a few hours it might have been plunged into war; that you were engaged in a cabal, that you were endeavouring to create war throughout Europe, that your policy was a policy of unmitigated vengeance, massacre, and confiscation. Why cannot you sit down quietly and allow all these things to be said of you?" Now, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman made a great impression throughout the country, and if that impression be founded upon that which is false, it should be dispelled, and if it be founded upon a real state of affairs, then let it be confirmed, so that the real state of affairs may be placed before the public. Now, the impression created by the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman is, that we were at one time within a few hours of war with France, and that naturally produces the inquiry whether that took place under the late Government. Now, when I asked on Friday I was told that the proof that such a state of things existed was to be found in an answer made by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton to a question put to him by an hon. Gentleman opposite and in the sudden departure of the French Ambassador. To-night, however, the explanation is totally different, for we are now told that the danger arose not during the administration of the late Government, but during that of the present, One of two things must be the case,—either that character for prudence, justice, good sense, and friendly spirit towards this country which we have always attributed to the Emperor of the French has been wrongly attributed to him, or he is, on the contrary, very ready to pick a quarrel and make war upon an; but if the Emperor of the French is, as I believe him to be, a man of prudence and good sense, if he be actuated by a friendly spirit towards the people of this country, as I believe him to be, then I am unable to believe one word of this story of our being within a few hours of war with France. I certainly have no intention of imputing to the right hon. Gentleman that be wilfully or intentionally stated that which was not well founded, but I think that he has been carried away by the brilliancy and fertility of his imagination into supposing dangers to exist which really had no existence. When the Emperor of the French had it explained to him,—and I admit that it was most fairly and temperately explained to him by the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs,—that our laws did not allow to make the change proposed, but that the laws as they existed were sufficient to punish assassination, or conspiring to assassinate, I have no doubt that he was satisfied with the explanation, and that in time a good understanding was sure to prevail. The good understanding which the right hon. Gentleman states prevails now, is the natural consequence of the irritation subsiding which was caused by the fearful and horrible attempt of the 14th of January. That occurrence took place four months ago, and it is the natural action of the human mind to calm down as the event which has produced irritation becomes more remote. The right hon. Gentleman, however, misinterpreting that which is the natural cause of a natural effect, forgetting that naturally the minds of the people of France are calmer than they were when the streets of Paris ran with the blood of the victims of that horrible attempt, and that the first feeling of irritation having subsided, it was only natural that the previous feeling of friendliness to this country should return, has attributed the revival of those friendly feelings to the wisdom and prudence of the Government. Then, with regard to the next question, namely,—as to a cabal which is endeavouring to stir up war between Naples and Sardinia, I oust say that I naturally supposed that the cabal referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was some cabal formed in this House. I thought, perhaps, that it was meant that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Kinglake), was the promoter of that cabal, and that the right hon. Gentleman had discovered the whole plan; but it appears now that the cabal does not exist in this House, but that it exists somewhere else. The right hon. Gentleman asks the people of Buckinghamshire and the people of England for their acknowledgments and support for defeating the cabal, and he asks for sympathy in consequence of the difficulties to which he is exposed by the existence of that cabal. Now, Sir, I should like to know where the cabal has its existence. Does the right hon. Gentleman—and I am almost afraid to mention the subject—does he charge any foreign Minister resident at the Court of Her Majesty with being engaged in a cabal against the Government to which he is accredited? Does he complain that any member of the late Government or that any Member of this House is engaged in any cabal? Well, then, if there be no such cabal, all the credit is taken from the Government for defeating it, and they have no claim to the sympathy which they ask for in being exposed to the dangers of encountering that cabal. Then I come to the question as regards unmitigated vengeance, massacre, and confiscation. Now, I have always supposed from the time I read that speech that the policy of vengeance, of massacre, and confiscation was the policy of somebody; that it was a policy which the Government had had to consider, and to which they objected, and that they had adopted a policy of which unmitigated vengeance and massacre formed no part. We now, however, learn that it is only a sort of hypothetical policy. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that confiscation on the part of Viscount Canning will produce vengeance not on the part of the European troops, but upon the part of the Natives, and that vengeance will produce massacre. Now, I think certainly that it was worth my noble Friend's while to ask for some explanation, for the result has been that we have got an explanation which no one could have dreamt of. No one, I am sure, could have supposed that that was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman until he explained it to the House. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has talked of a party Motion. I do not hold a great deal of communication with the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, but I understand from his late colleagues that, in his view, after the present Government was installed in office, it would be for the interest of the Liberal party not to bring forward any Motion with the view of displacing them, but that the best course for the Liberal party to pursue was to consider what subjects of general interest would be brought forward, to distinguish points of agreement and disagreement, and by degrees to consolidate their strength, and form themselves in such a manner that they might carry great public measures of great public advantage. That I believe was the opinion of the noble Lord, and I think that there were few who did not share in it. Well, Sir, when that wonderful despatch of the Earl of Ellen-borough's was shown to me by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) to whom it had been communicated by the Earl of Ellenborough, I said at once, "This is an abominably bad despatch." It struck me at once that it would hardly do for this House to be content with merely reading that despatch, to have it, in fact, thrown in their faces, and not to take any notice of it, and that, in a party sense, however injurious it might be, we could hardly avoid doing so if we paid due regard to the interests of this country in India, and if any regard ought to be paid to a person placed in the position of Governor General of that country. That was my opinion, and I believe that it was a very general opinion in the House. Then came the resignation of the Earl of Ellenborough, who had written and directed the publication of the despatch, and upon that event taking place great difference of opinion ensued. There were certain persons who originally were prepared to say that something must be done to show the sense of the House upon the despatch which had been placed upon the table, but who were content when they saw that some atonement had been made, not to proceed with the Motion. Hence those differences which led to the route of my postponing the subject during the present right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell), and the triumph of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It appears to me that we could hardly have passed by that despatch consistently with our duty. There was something rather strange in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty upon the subject of India. It was proposed by the late Government to transfer the government of India from the East India Company to the Crown, and that proposal was assented to by the House, and adopted by the present Government, who, when they came into office, announced their intention of introducing a measure upon the subject. That measure they introduced, and a most ridiculous measure it was. I do not remember any measure which encountered more general disapprobation. Well, Sir, I did not wish to take advantage of the blunder of the Government or to put them into any difficulty, and I therefore proposed to proceed with the consideration of the subject by way of Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who himself was always ready to take a share in a party Motion when he sat on this side, but who now considers nothing so horrible as an attack upon the Government, will not, I think, accuse me of party motive in making that proposal. I think, however, that the Government are bound to proceed with these Resolutions, and to ask for the decision of the House upon some of those points upon which the hon. Member for Sheffield proposed to take a decision, and some few points upon which hinges the nature of the constitution of the government you propose to substitute for the Court of Directors. But the right hon. Gentleman says we cannot now proceed with those Resolutions because Lord Stanley has accepted the office of President of the Board of Control. Now, the right hon. Gentleman himself was the chief proposer of the measures having reference to India, and I should have thought that he would have been able fully to discuss these questions without my noble Friend the President of the Board of Control. Well, the Bill of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. L. King) has been carefully postponed till next week, and I do not know when we shall proceed with those Resolutions. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: On Monday next.] Very well; that shows more inclination to advance than I believed to exist, but, still, postponing the subject during the present week shows very little inclination to pro- ceed with the measure, and I should certainly not be surprised to hear, after a few nights' debate, that it is too late in the Session to proceed with the question. If that is their intention I beg them to state it. Do not let us waste night after night in unprofitable discussions upon various Amendments to the Resolutions; but let us know at once that it is not your intention to go on with the measure. I must say the present Conservative Government does not inspire me with any very great confidence in its Conservatism. We have been accustomed in former times to see Conservative Governments resisting a good deal and making very slow progress; but, being of a very patient temper myself in regard to reforms, and thinking the country has the power in its own hands, and is sure in the end to get the reforms which it wants, I should bear with some equanimity a rather low rate of progress on the part of a Conservative Government. But when I see a Conservative Government go off with sudden jerks and starts, sometimes evincing the obstructiveness which characterized the old Tory party, at other times going off at a pace like extreme Radicalism, I am filled with as much alarm as if I were to see you, Sir, proceeding leisurely and at the usual pace in your state coach to Buckingham Palace, and your horses were all at once to dash off at the rate of twelve or fourteen miles an hour. The plan of the Government with respect to the election by popular constituencies of certain members of their proposed Indian council was not a Conservative measure; certainly it was not a Whig measure; and it was even too extravagant and democratic for the most extreme Radicals. It is these eccentric movements which keep me in a state of continual suspense in regard to the present Administration. The First Lord of the Admiralty may tell us that all the time is lost which is spent in making any inquiry into these points, hot I hold that the character of the Government of this country, and whether it is to be a Conservative or a Liberal and progressive Government, is a question of the utmost importance to the welfare of the people. And when I see a right hon. Gentleman departing so much from all usual precedent, and, I must add, from the dignity and decorum of his position, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in his late speech in Buckinghamshire, it causes me a good deal of apprehension, not lest the Government may be too Conservative, not that it may resist too much, but lest it should rashly and imprudently incur dangers which it will be difficult for any future Government or Parliament to remove.

MR. WHITESIDE

The speeches we have heard from the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton and the noble Lord the Member for London remind one forcibly of the relation between Castor and Pollux. The one rose when the other set. The conjunction would appear to be an ominous one. It was thought last week that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had gone into the country to repose upon his Parliamentary laurels; but it seems that he temporarily disappeared from among us only that he might favour us with the results of his illustrious retirement. The noble Lord the Member for London is afflicted with apprehension as to the policy of the present Ministry. He thinks it moves sometimes too fast, at other times too slow, and if it would only maintain the happy medium of old constitutional Whiggery, no doubt it would receive the noble Lord's approving smile. The noble Lord cannot be accused of having gone too fact, because sometimes he did not go at all; and on several questions of great public interest his puny and abortive efforts at legislation have—to use his own expression—left a legacy of mischief behind them which it would be a difficult task for a body of sensible men to rectify. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has truly said, that if you think the great interests of the country are in jeopardy under an incompetent Government, you can bring forward a Motion to displace them, and restore the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton to that position in winch he so lately secured the good opinion of this House, and, what is better, the universal approbation of the country. The noble Lord the Member for London now says, it is shocking that such a despatch as that of the Earl of Ellen-borough should have been made public, but that the error had been atoned for by the resignation of that noble Earl, and that there the matter might have been allowed to drop. If that is the noble Lord's opinion, certainly he did not carry it out in the late debate.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I did not say that that was my opinion, but that it was the opinion of some.

MR. WHITESIDE

I had thought that I might class the noble Lord himself in his dignified category of "some;" but certainly after the Earl of Ellenborough's resignation the adverse Motion was persevered with, and its advocates would have pressed it to a conclusion if they had not trembled in their skins at its impending result. From that result Her Majesty's Government had not shrunk, and the withdrawal of the Resolution certainly did not take place at their instance. I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly justified in the expressions which he used relative to the support rendered to the Government on that occasion by hon. Gentlemen who do not agree with its general principles, and I cannot regard the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton on this point as characterized by the best taste. Every man who can appreciate sound argument and high eloquence must appreciate the powerful address of the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). But I ask the noble Lord, laying aside forms and phrases, and looking for a moment at matters of substance, to listen to a passage from the letter of the Calcutta correspondent of The Times, from which he will be able to judge whether, after all, the views contained in the Earl of Ellenborough's despatch were very far wrong:— I presume the Oude Proclamation reached you some time since. Lest it should not, I enclose it here. The Proclamation has not been withdrawn or softened, but Mr. Montgomery (our Commissioner in Oude) has received carte blanche to deal with each case as he chooses. What does Mr. Montgomery do? He sets aside your confiscatory Proclamation, and his course is to compound with the Native aristocracy. That is exactly the contrary of your Proclamation. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Yes."] I say "Yes," because your argument was this:—"We mean to deal with the village proprietors, but not with the great nobles and the aristocracy." And how does this man of sense, who is, I believe, a countryman of mine, proceed? He compounds with the aristocracy, and here is the result:— His course is to compound with the aristocracy, and the landholders, finding that the chief gives them their property, are coming to him fast. So that if he had acted on your Proclamation, we can easily conjecture the result. He followed the policy suggested by the Earl of Ellenborough, and I am sure there is too much justice in this House to condemn a statesman for words, if in substance he was right. The letter from which I have quoted proceeds:— There is, however, little hope of the pacification of Oude for some months. We hold only the city, and that we are compelled to fortify again. I would only mention that the North-West officials, so long devoted to the village system, are everywhere recanting their opinions. They admit that the Native aristocracy is essential to our own security—that the zemindaree system has preserved Bengal, and that without permitting landholders to grow, permanent peace is almost impossible. That was the argument of the Earl of Ellenborough's despatch, and now it has received its confirmation. With regard to the case of the Cagliari, I have read the correspondence of December last, which the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone) rightly said gave Sardinia a fair claim to call upon England to befriend her. If hon. Gentlemen will have the curiosity to look into the legal opinions and the facts stated in the papers on the table, they will see that the despatch in question is unlike all the correspondence that precedes it, and that it must have been written by some other person than the individual from whom all the previous communications proceeded. I allude to the despatch which asks whether Sardinia will adopt a different course from that which she had hitherto pursued; and the remark I have made is a fair criticism arising upon the document itself. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton asks how my right lion. Friend came to make such a speech after dinner. Did the noble himself never make an after-dinner speech? It cannot be forgotten that, on the 9th of November last, he made a speech at the Mansion House, in which he challenged France and the whole of Europe to mortal combat, declaring that if any foreign nation thought we were not ready for battle because our troops had been sent to India, he begged to assure them they were in error, for he was quite prepared to engage in conflict with them. And so the noble Lord was. If ever a Minister escaped from half-a-dozen votes of censure which ought to have been pronounced upon him, it was the noble Lord. The noble Lord says he is very familiar with foreign affairs. Of course we can only be guided by the official documents laid before us. But how the Minister who endorsed the conduct of the Earl of Clarendon in signing at the Paris Conferences the protocol directed against the freedom of the Belgian press should have escaped the indignant censure of a British Parliament has always filled me with amazement. The noble Lord said that the circumstances in which Viscount Canning was placed ought to have been taken into account, inasmuch as he had only 400 men to hold the country between Calcutta and Dinapore. No doubt this ought to be taken into account; but who left Viscount Canning in that defenceless state? Why, the Government of the noble Lord, which directed our troops to carry on a war with Persia, the object of which nobody ever understood—not even the noble Lord himself. The effect of the China war, of which the noble Lord boasts so much, was to leave Calcutta without the protection of a single ship. When Mr. Layard asked for an explanation of the grounds on which the Persian war was undertaken, the noble Lord told us something about an epistle from the Shah which was not exactly couched in the style of the Polite Letter Writer, and he managed, with his usual adroitness, to turn the laugh upon his interrogator, but he never condescended to give the House any intelligible explanation of the origin of that war. The consequence was that that war, like every other war entered into without justice, entailed not only the loss of blood and treasure upon this country, but produced serious troubles and dangers in other parts of our empire. The noble Lord boasts in a triumphant manner of the condition in which he left the affairs of the country when he quitted office; but when he spoke in so triumphant a tone he seemed to forget that he was driven from office—that he had incurred the censure and disapproval of this House because he had not replied to a despatch which implied that assassination was favoured in this country, but, on the contrary, accepted the insult. I was myself a party to the transaction which then took place. I heard the defence of the noble Lord, and I am bound to say that, after the vote of censure which this House passed, it does not become the noble Lord to boast of the skill and success with which he conducted the affairs of the nation with regard to France. Such a boast is a reflection on the wisdom of the House of Commons. I must say I do not think the noble Lord has much improved the position taken up on Friday night by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), and I think if the noble Lord and his friends opposite can do no better than they have done in making this attack, their wiser course would be to give us some of those great and brilliant measures which they are always promising to bring in, but which we are so seldom permitted to see, and leave the House to judge of the value of their measures when they are brought forward.

MR. KINGLAKE

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer having stated somewhat complacently that the statement of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton with respect to Sardinia was unfounded, he (Mr. Kinglake) could assert on the contrary that it was perfectly accurate. On the 15th of February, nearly a week before the retirement of the late Government, Watt was released, not from custody, but from prison. On Feb. 23, that is after the vote which displaced the late Government, but while the Earl of Clarendon was still holding the seals of the Foreign Office, the Earl of Clarendon wrote a despatch pressing for the entire liberation of Watt, on the ground that his return to England and the company of his relatives would be calculated to restore his mental health. After the retirement of the late Government the King of Naples liberated this man. But how did he liberate him? Why, he liberated him in terms which corresponded to the very letter with the despatch of the Earl of Clarendon. He asserted confidently that the Earl of Clarendon was the cause of the permission given to Watt to return to this country. So much with regard to Watt. A few words with regard to Park. On the 12th of March, that being the first day on which Her Majesty's Ministers met the House of Commons, he (Mr. Kinglake) brought forward a Motion, the object of which was to obtain permission for Watt and Park to return to this country; and, after hearing what he had to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up, and, having expressed a good deal of sympathy with these unfortunate men, he deliberately told the House that nothing could be done. A debate, however, arose on the subject, in which the feeling of the House on the subject was strongly and generally expressed, and Her Majesty's Government then showed a disposition to take strong measures to secure the liberation of the prisoners. On the 18th of March, six days after he (Mr. Kinglake) brought forward his Motion, the Earl of Malmesbury wrote his first despatch, in which he asked for the liberation of these men. It was a humiliating thing for this country that no demand, properly so called, was made for their liberation except by the Sardinian Government. The instructions to Mr. Lyons which had been so much vaunted were not instructions to demand with a high hand their liberation; they were instructions to inquire. He asserted, therefore, that the result of this Cagliari affair was not an achievement of Her Majesty's Government, but was due to the House of Commons.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, the extraordinary position assumed by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down compelled him to make a few observations. Notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, he was convinced that a very slight observation of the facts of the case would convince any one in the House or out of it that it was owing to the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government that Watt and Park were at this moment free. On the 15th of February, Watt was removed from the infirmary. When he was brought before the court he was found quite unable to answer any question; and on the 20th he was taken back to the infirmary. A medical commission was appointed to inquire into the state of his health, and what was the result of the report of that commission? Why, on the 1st of March the Grand Court decided that Watt should remain at the infirmary; but added to this decision was the order— "The prisoner must stand his trial whenever he is sufficiently able to appear." The order was, in effect, one that the prisoner should remain in hospital till he was fit to be tried; yet that was what the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Kinglake) seems to think was an order for unconditional liberty. The real facts of the case were these. For nine months, as the country knows, these men were entirely neglected. One of the first things which the present Government did after their accession to office was to send to Naples a man of high character and who was chosen for the duty on account of his diplomatic experience, with instructions to exert his influence to the utmost to secure an alleviation of the condition of the prisoners. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, complained that Mr. Lyons was not instructed to treat the matter with a high hand. How, he would ask, could Her Majesty's Govern- ment, who, it must be recollected, had only just acceded to office, instruct him to so act until they had ascertained whether they would be fortified in so doing by justice, by law, and by the advice of their own law officers? When they had got that advice, and ascertained the exact position of affairs, they took the course which they were justified in taking. He asserted that from the moment of their coming into office, Her Majesty's Government had never had the treatment of these unfortunate men out of their consideration, and that they were now prepared, as they had ever been, to deal with this question in a manner becoming the honour of this country, and in accordance with what they considered to be due to the injured sufferers; and he was confident that their course would reflect honour upon themselves, and prove satisfactory to the country.