§ MR. BAZLEY brought up the Report of the Address in answer to the Lords Commissioners' Speech.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, that in former times, when it was not intended to offer any opposition to the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne, the opinion of the House was generally considered to be expressed by the speeches from the front benches. That was the case in the days when the House was divided into two great parties. But he ventured to think that the union and action of party could only be harmonious and effective when the organization of party rested upon principle; and he for one thought that, unfortunately both for themselves and the country, the occupants of the front benches on both sides of the House had for some years past been in the habit of sacrificing principle to expediency—though he did not think that the expediency upon which they had sought to act always promoted the object in view. It appeared to him that they had come to that pass when the occupants of the front benches neither exercised a very large influence over the opinions of that House, nor fully represented the opinions of the people of this country. There was no other resource, therefore, for private Members but to trespass on the patience of the House, and he would do so on that occasion with the view of making a few remarks on the topics referred to in the Royal Speech. The subject which seemed likely to occupy the largest share of the attention of the House was the proposed cession of the Ionian Islands. He should be very sorry, in the present state of the proceeding, to commit himself to any opinion as to the course he might think it right to take upon 151 the political part of the question. He would only observe that it seemed to him so important and intricate as to require the gravest deliberations before coming to a decision upon it. It seemed to him that during the whole time these Islands had been under our protectorate we had never exercised our power advantageously for the islanders, and the consequence was that our whole system of government had provoked undisguised aversion. We had been endeavouring to palm a constitution upon a people that was utterly unfit for it, and which had made all attempts at the Government of these Islands utterly ineffectual and ridiculous. During the debate of last evening great stress had been laid upon the military part of the question. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire to say that he thought that in a military point of view the possession of the Ionian Islands was essential to the interests of the country. That was a very difficult question. If it had been put to him (Mr. Bentinck) thirty years ago, he should have inclined to the view of the right hon. Gentleman; but it appeared to him that circumstances had entirely changed, and that the introduction of steam had so altered the system of warfare that he was disposed to doubt whether, in case of war in the Mediterranean, we should derive any great military advantage from the possession of these Islands. The right hon. Gentleman had said truly that power was a source of national wealth, and that this nation ought to possess strongly-fortified posts in particular positions. But it must be remembered that these strong places could not be maintained and held except by strong garrisons, and he wanted to know where these were to be found in the reduced state of the military armaments of the country, and what prospect there would be of our maintaining secure possession of these Islands if our armaments—if the term "bloated" could be applied to them— were to be reduced, and our military resources were to be diminished? If the cession of Corfu was to be made an argument for the reduction of our military establishment, he should regard the cession as a disadvantage; but supposing that the result of the discussion on the question of the abandonment of the Protectorate of these Islands should be to approve that course, he hoped they would obtain a large military force for the defence of 152 other military posts now very ill-garrisoned. Another question of the greatest importance had been adverted to yesterday. The fortresses of Gibraltar and Malta were incidentally referred to in connection with the Ionian Islands. He thought there was no affinity whatever between them. The House knew how they came into possession of the Ionian Islands, but the retention of Gibraltar and Malta stood upon an entirely different footing, and he thought that any man who advocated their cession must either be imbecile or a traitor to his country; and he trusted that, if such a proposition were made, it would be scouted by the almost unanimous opinion of the House. Much had been said on what was going on in the United States, and he was certainly a good deal surprised that the noble Lord at the head of the Government should not have thought proper to advert in any way to this subject. He thought he might securely venture to say that a great change of opinion had taken place in this country during the last two months with respect to the state of things on the other side of the water. In March last he (Mr. Bentinck) ventured to suggest the propriety of recognising the independence of the Southern States. He ventured to say that, though at that time he did not receive any support in that House, yet he believed, if the matter were now to be brought forward, the proposal would meet with a very different reception. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Address (Mr. Calthorpe) had referred to the change of opinion which had taken place with reference to the nature of the war now going on between the Northern and the Southern States of America, and as to its being a struggle for the maintenance or abolition of slavery. He (Mr. Bentinck) believed it was utter cant to assert that this was a war for the abolition of slavery, and that the people of this country generally had arrived at the conclusion that the question of abolition or non-abolition had nothing to do with the war. We were now in possession of the real merits of the case, and we knew that the question of slavery was not the bone of contention between the North and the South. The people of this country to a man had a distaste for the institution of slavery; and if they thought that to be the real cause of the war, he believed the strong feeling of sympathy towards the South would not have existed in the minds of his countrymen. 153 The hon. Gentleman had also reminded them that after expending £20,000,000 upon the abolition of slavery we had refused to maintain the duty on slave-grown sugar because it was in contravention of the principle of free trade. He was glad to hear that observation come from the other side of the House, because it showed that there had been a great deal of cant upon that subject. So far as concerned the conduct of the South it was impossible to help admiring their gallant bearing and their heroic defence. This struggle, at all events, had taught them one great moral lesson, and that was, that under American democracy all the men of highest repute for education, ability, and character, were excluded from an influential part in the government of the country. Another topic of the Address was the great and wide distress that had existed for many months past in this country. No man could refrain from saying that it had been borne in a manner most creditable by those who were the sufferers, and no one could fail to admire the immense amount of benevolence that had been called forth. It behoved the House, however, not to allow themselves to be misled on this question. He ventured to think — for he had heard it stated over and over again by those who had the best opportunity of forming an opinion — that this distress was not caused solely by the stoppage of the cotton supply from the United States, but that much of it was to be attributed to the over-speculation and overproduction of the great mill-owners. They were naturally anxious to turn their capital to the best account, but they had not been sufficiently mindful that their power of production was unlimited, while the markets of the world were limited. This was a subject of grave consideration for the Government; because, if the distress arose, as was generally assumed, solely from the absence of a supply of cotton, they might hope soon to see it terminated; but if this distress had been in a great degree caused by the over-speculation of the great mill-owners, it behoved them to look more closely into the matter, for the same cause would periodically bring about the same result. It would be well not to encourage over-production. He did not wish to say one word in derogation of those who had borne their sufferings so bravely in Lancashire and Cheshire, but he regretted that in the Royal Speech no allusion was made to the distress existing in 154 other parts of the country, for there had also been great suffering in Warwickshire, in the metropolis, and in Ireland. He wished to know why the Government should have reserved all their sympathy for the manufacturing districts? When the time came for paying a proper tribute to those who had done so much to meet the wants of the distressed operatives of Lancashire, it would be necessary to inquire whether those who had distributed the funds—beyond doubt a difficult task —had exercised their powers with sufficient discrimination, for there was danger lest a state of things should be brought about which would induce a portion of the population to prefer a state of idleness to one of industry. Various topics had been introduced to the attention of the House in the Speech from the Throne, and even the question of Reform had not been forgotten. He was not now going to dwell upon it, though there were many hon. Members who were fond of talking of Reform when there was no prospect of its being effected. He wanted to know, however, whether Reform meant anything but an attempt on the part of one portion of the community for their own benefit to have the control of the incidence of taxation. If the question of Reform were to be considered, taxation should be taken into account with it. The contest at this moment going on between the North and the South was in truth nothing more than a discussion, something roughly carried out, of a Reform Bill. He hoped it would be borne in mind at the present moment that there was one great existing grievance to be remedied—that was that the present representation of the rural districts was wholly inadequate. The result was, that at that moment the rural districts bore a larger share of the taxation of the country than was their due. He hoped, if a distinguished Reformer should arise, that he would bear in mind the gravity of this existing grievance.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, he did not quite concur in the theory of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), that a new Reform Bill should be founded on a supposed excess of taxation paid by the agricultural interest. His constituents, who belonged chiefly to the working classes, contributed largely to the revenue of the country. For example, the tobacco smoked by the poor man was taxed at 3s. 2d. per lb. weight, whilst cigars sold at 50s. 155 per lb. bore only a duty of 9s. The same inequality might be found in the duties affecting tea, sugar, and other articles of necessity. He thought, therefore, that the working classes had a right to ask that such questions as these should be considered with reference to any Reform Bill that might be submitted to the consideration of the House. On the other hand, he thoroughly went along with the hon. Member for West Norfolk in his observations regarding the Lancashire distress, He should like to know from those Gentlemen who represented localities in the north of England what was the course which had been adopted in the manufacturing districts in respect to the Bill which was passed at the end of the last Session of Parliament—he alluded to the measure which enabled those localities to rate themselves in a way best calculated to relieve the distress which fell so heavily upon the working classes in those districts. As far as he understood, there were only a few instances where the rates had risen to the amount of 3s. in the pound, when the Board of Guardians had availed themselves of that Bill. It was provided that in such an eventuality the parishes concerned could obtain a rate in aid. Now, he believed that the measure in question had never, with one or two exceptions, been acted upon. There were many parishes in the metropolis whose normal state was a poor rate of 3s. in the pound and upwards. A Bill was a short time ago brought into the House with the view of effecting an equalization of the poor rates in the metropolis. It, however, obtained no general support then, as it was objected that such a measure was opposed to the principles of political economy. Now, he did not think that political economy had any more to do with that particular question than it had with the principle of the Poor Law in general; and he contended that the measure which was passed at the end of last Session to relieve the distressed districts was one which in effect adopted the principle of equalization of rates for the relief of the poor. A Committee sat last Session on the question of Poor Relief, when evidence was given on the subject of equalization of rating to the relief of the poor, and he supposed it would continue its labours this Session, and he trusted the Government would turn their attention to the subject, with a view to the equalization of the rates, not in the metropolitan dis- 156 trict only, but throughout the country. He made those observations for the purpose of drawing the attention of the House and the Government to this question of the equalization of the poor rates, which he considered to be one of the most vital importance. The Act of last Session was a step in the right direction. Subscriptions, however, had come in most liberally for the relief of the operatives, and the several Boards of Guardians had chosen to accept the contributions of the benevolent rather than adopt a course which would have thrown a heavier local taxation upon themselves.
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he must express his regret that the Government had not thought it advisable to introduce into the Speech from the Throne any allusion to any one subject which was generally connected in the minds of the people of this country with the liberal party. In their foreign policy he concurred, nor was there one count in the long indictment brought against the Government last night upon which he should not be inclined to pronounce a verdict of acquittal. Even on the difficult question of Schleswig-Holstein he thought it would turn out that the solution proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office would prove to be the only solution which would prevent that long-standing and embittered controversy leading to a bloody war. But had the country arrived at such a point of political development that nothing remained to be done at home, and that all the energies of the Government must be employed in extending the blessings of constitutional Government to other nations? Such an assertion might be refuted by the example of Holland, a country much in advance of Great Britain in some material points of political development. He rejoiced to learn that there was some prospect of a reduction in the expenditure. Reduction of expenditure was a good thing; but for this few thanks were due to the Government. The House had to thank, in the first place, the convictions of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), and next the tactics of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). How did it happen that not one of the questions brought forward by the liberal party, and supported by them upon divisions, was alluded to in the programme of the Government? He thought it was the general opinion of the country that the question 157 of Reform should for the present be laid aside; but there were many other questions which the Government might have taken up—for instance, the question of church rates, which year after year had been dragging its slow length along, and which now seemed further than ever from solution. Then there was another question —a Clergy relief Bill, which ought to be brought forward by the Government; for without some such measure being passed into law they would see the pulpits of the Church of England filled by a set of men who would have no relation whatever to the once learned and refined clergymen of that Church. What he complained of now was that the Government were not bringing forward any measures: it was not that they were to have half a loaf, but that they were to have no bread. The Government might say that they were willing to remain in office for the purpose of conducting the foreign affairs of the country, and of saving Europe from the calamity of having such a statesman as Lord Malmesbury for our Foreign Minister; but, in his opinion, the constituencies would support them in a bolder line of policy.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he could not share in the regret expressed by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that Her Majesty's Government had not promised to bring in measures which would have recommended themselves only to a section of the House. With respect to church rates, he had himself given notice of his intention to introduce a Bill on that subject, and he should rejoice if its provisions were of such a character as to secure the approval of Her Majesty's Government, He fully concurred in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman that the time had arrived for a settlement of this long-agitated question. It appeared to him that the present condition of the question opened a breach through which the enemies of the Church of England could approach the chief stronghold of our ecclesiastical establishment. He could not concur in the terms of the Address which echoed the sentiments of congratulation expressed in the Royal Speech upon the operation of the French Treaty. It was impossible for him to forget how it had affected the riband trade, and that this was the third winter during which he had been compelled to labour for the alleviation of the distress of the industrious classes around him, and that the French Treaty was in operation during the whole 158 of that time. No one therefore could expect him to join in those congratulations to which he had referred. If the treaty had benefited the great mass of the community, he could only say he rejoiced at it. He had never opposed the principle of a treaty with France. Such a treaty as that concluded by Mr. Pitt was undoubtedly of the greatest possible advantage to this country; but he was sorry to say that the present treaty with France had imposed a heavy weight upon the shoulders of the constituency he represented, and from which very many thousands of honest men would, he believed, never recover. He hoped, then that the House would allow him, as far as his constituents were concerned, to except himself from joining in that portion of the Address to which he had referred. Her Majesty, in Her Royal Speech, had alluded to the fact that she had concluded a commercial treaty with Belgium. Now, it should be recollected that the products of Belgium come into competition with the products of the looms in his district. He had repeatedly brought before the House the fact that the conditions of the French Treaty were not reciprocal as regarded both countries; for whereas the conditions relating to the whole category of duties abolished in the treaty under the fifth article were absolute, the conditions for the admission of the products of Great Britain into France were qualified. The effect of such an arrangement was, as he had frequently stated, that England was bound to receive the produce of the whole world coming under the category of the article No. 5 duty free; whereas France was only bound to receive the produce of the United Kingdom, not of the Colonies, and that under a scale of duties which France under the treaty had the power to modify. If he were right as to his apprehensions of the effect of the fifth article of the French treaty, he wished to know whether the commodities imported under the category of the article No. 5 were not duty free under the operation of that treaty, and whether or not it was possible to modify the duty on the produce of Belgium and other countries under the said treaty? He was aware that the present Lord Chancellor when Attorney General, gave it as his opinion that the conditions of the French Treaty were in this respect reciprocal— that it was only the produce of France and Algeria that came under the provisions of Article 5 of the treaty. But he was 159 advised by competent authorities that that opinion would be disputed, in consequence of" the most favoured nation "clause. If we were, then, to form treaties with other countries, and that "the most favoured nation" clause were introduced, he was afraid we should be found totally impotent as regarded other countries, because we should be precluded by the terms of the French Treaty. He trusted that the Government would at the earliest period lay the text of the Belgian Treaty before the House. In the general tenor of the Address he cordially concurred. He felt he would be wearying the House if he were to express the depth of the feelings of gratification which, as an individual, he experienced at the prospect of happiness which had dawned upon the Royal Family. But he wished to express his conviction distinctly upon one point, and it was this. He thought that the greatest praise was due to Her Majesty's Government in reference to the proposal that His Holiness the Pope should take refuge within the British dominions, should he be compelled to leave Rome. He thought that that offer by Her Majesty's Government was characterized by a due courtesy and a sound discretion. In 1861 he drew the attention of the House to the fact that rumours were afloat to the effect that in the event of the Holy See becoming vacant or of the Pope abdicating his functions, or leaving Rome, it was proposed to convene an œcumenical Council in this country. It was further rumoured that Cardinal Wiseman was to have exercised the functions of His Holiness, and that a successor to the Pope was to be appointed. This report was circulated principally on the authority of the Indépendance Belge. Now, this was an important matter. If an œcumenical Council were convened in this country, a vast number of foreigners would be attracted hither in consequence, and the Roman Catholic priesthood might be excited to the commission of acts which would be seriously resented by other parties. Such a feeling of irritation would be then likely to arise as would far exceed that which existed in 1851. He wished now to express the opinion that Her Majesty's Government, in answering the question put to them, whether English hospitality would be afforded to the Pope in the event of His Holiness being obliged to leave Rome, had replied in a wise and courteous manner, and that the site indi- 160 cated by them as a residence for the Pope was a site well chosen as regarded not only his own interests, but also the interests of the United Kingdom.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that with respect to the cession of the Ionian Islands he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), but he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had considered the question of the cession of the Islands in reference to the communication with India? In the event of a war with France, the route from England by Marseilles would of course be stopped, and the Adriatic would then be regarded as the direct route to the Indian possessions of this country; but if the Ionian Islands were given up, they would either be occupied by the enemy or become the resort of vessels which might cut off our communication with the Indian Empire. The Adriatic in time of war was a great battle-field for naval operations, and notwithstanding the different motive power now applied to vessels, it must still be an important position, and he could not regard the cession of the Ionian Islands as other than detrimental to this country, and he should oppose the measure as far as it was in his power to do so. Had the Secretary of the Admiralty been in his place, he should have put a question to him with respect to the iron ships now building; but he should take an early opportunity of inquiring what was the model which was to be finally adopted. Observing that the senior Naval Lord of the Admiralty had gone down to Devonport and informed the constituency that the iron fleet at present constructed consisted of exceedingly fine ships in every point of view, and were highly reported on by the Admiral on the Lisbon station, yet that "these," according to the words attributed to the Senior Lord in The Times, "would not form the model to be finally adopted," he gave notice that he should take an early opportunity of asking the Government what model had been finally adopted, and whether they had adopted any precise and definite views in reference to the construction of the iron fleet of this country. There was another point not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, but which must soon come under the consideration of the House, and on which the Government would have to explain their policy—he alluded to the renewal of the Galway contract. That was the most extraordinary circumstance that had hap- 161 pened within his recollection. It would be remembered what a great amount of political capital had been made out of that question, and that hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Opposition side of the House had been vilified on account of the grant of that contract. He was told, indeed, that an hon. Gentleman had been made a Baronet in consequence of having held up that contract to execration. Yet, if the contract was at any time necessary, it was at the period of its grant, when there was a large efflux of emigration from Ireland to America. But now that that emigration was reduced to a small figure the contract was restored. Was that done with a view to a general election? The present Government availed themselves of every means of vilifying the Administration of Lord Derby by condemning that contract in every possible way for three long years, and yet now, on taking up The Times one fine morning, people discovered that the Galway contract was restored. What was the reason of that? If he was rightly informed, the terms on which the contract bad been restored were of a most extraordinary description. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were once opposed to a sliding scale, but those who formerly stood up for free trade now recommended differential duties on various articles of commerce. They were all sliding back to the old thing; but the sliding scale he now spoke of bad reference to speed. He was told that under the new Galway contract, if the vessels made 10½ knots an hour, the Government were to pay so much; for nine knots they were to pay another sum, and the scale went down to eight knots. Now, if a vessel, only capable of going eight knots an hour, were to cross the Atlantic against a westerly gale, she would not be likely to reach her destination at a very early period, and he was informed that some houses in the City bad on this ground remonstrated against the arrangement. He should be glad to hear on an early day an explanation relative to the Galway contract.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he wished to avail himself of that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a question involving a sum of £500,000, and the conduct of the Government in reference to appointments in the Colonies. The colony he referred to was New Zealand. If be were to say that they were spending £500,000 a year there uselessly, or were engaged in an unjust quarrel with 162 the Native chiefs, he should expect to be counted out; for, on a former occasion of the kind, he had found every possible difficulty thrown in his way, of which be had great reason to complain. They professed that the Natives of New Zealand should have the rights of British subjects, yet they were overborne in the exercise of them, the Governor had been allowed to interfere in matters affecting private property, and to disregard the rights of individuals; and upon a war breaking out, for which the public of this country had to pay, complaints from the colony were unheeded and justice was not done. What he now specially referred to was the fact that the Government of this country had guaranteed a loan of £500,000 on the recommendation of a Committee, which recommendation was founded on evidence which was the reverse of the truth. The Governor, who had done all the mischief, was removed; but because he had abused his trust in one office he was appointed to another. And in the mean while the colony had been left in a state of chronic disorder. Thus the British Parliament became responsible for all this bad government. He could assure the House that there was a most serious case to be inquired into, and that they would be wanting in duty if redress were not given.
§ MR. HIBBERT,referring to the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), that the unions in the distressed manufacturing districts had not made large use of the Act passed last Session, said, that he (Mr. Hibbert) know that out of the nineteen or twenty unions which constituted the distressed cotton districts, ten or eleven were in a position to avail themselves of the Act. He knew also that since the. Christmas quarter two of these unions had availed themselves of the rate in aid upon the counties of Cheshire and Lancashire, and five unions were availing themselves of the borrowing Powers of that Act. Therefore, it was scarcely fair to say that sufficient use had not been mode of the Act of last Session. At the same time, however, he was well aware, that had it not been for the great sympathy which had been shown towards the distressed districts, many more of these unions would have come under the rate in aid. As one of the representatives of that district he was glad to take that opportunity of thanking the nation for the admirable manner in which it had come to the 163 relief of their fellow-countrymen in their distress, and he could assure the House that Lancashire would be found willing, whenever appealed to, to contribute to the relief of distress which might be found to exist in any part of the United Kingdom. The Act of last Session, however, should have justice done to it, and he had no doubt that before twelve months were over it would be of great assistance to the people of Lancashire in enabling them to meet the distress which was still pressing upon them.
§ SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, that it was by no means an easy task to draw up a Royal Speech in which a great variety of subjects were to be touched upon, without at the same time raising opposition in some quarter; and in the endeavour to secure the concurrence of all parties, not only much diplomacy was displayed in dealing with different subjects, but matters of importance were sometimes omitted altogether. To adopt a figure of speech— usually termed an Irish bull—it sometimes happened that the most important parts of the Speech were its omissions. There were, however, one or two subjects in which the public had been interested lately, to which some allusion, he thought, might with propriety have been made. One of those subjects, the Home Secretary would say, was already referred to a Commission; he alluded to that of transportation and secondary punishments. He was not at all anxious to go into the question; but in his experience of Parliament and the ways of Government he had had occasion to remark that Commissions were often appointed for two very opposite purposes. One was to elicit most valuable and complete information, by means of an investigation for which a Commission was more competent than a Committee of the House of Commons, and thus to lay a foundation for sound practical legislation. But there was another object for which Commissions had sometimes been appointed, and that was the evasion of a subject altogether. That was one of those dexterous acts of Government which were not altogether unfamiliar to most of them. He did not think that the Commission on the question of transportation had been appointed with any such intention. The question was a grave one, and called for serious discussion; and, according to the general feelings of the country, there was a call for some great change in legislation—a change which he thought could not be avoided. It 164 was a subject which could not be lost sight of, and what he wished to observe was, that the Government should endeavour, at as early a period of the Session as practicable, to bring the labours of the Commission to some sort of conclusion, and to place in the hands of hon. Members materials for legislation in the course of the present Session. There was another subject, the absence of which was a noticeable feature of the Speech, and that was the much-vexed question of Reform. Even his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. White) had not proposed an Amendment to the Address because of the omission, being deterred, no doubt, by his former ill success. He hoped the omission was because Her Majesty's Ministers were convinced that throughout the country there was absolute indifference to the question. There was no pressure on the Ministers, and therefore he hoped they would not move in the matter; and, indeed, the noble Lord at the head of the Government was perhaps not much inclined to start this organic question. There had been a battle raging in different parts of the country as to whether or no there had been a Conservative reaction—whether there was a turn in the tide, or whether there was still only a little lull, and the great Reformers were only retiring that they might jump forward with greater vigour. In one sense there was no reaction whatever. A great number of very important measures had been carried in the course of the last thirty years; and on none of these questions was there any disposition in any quarter of the House or the country to retrace their steps. To some of those measures the Conservatives gave a consistent and steady opposition. In respect to some they admitted candidly they might have been mistaken in their estimate of the results that might follow from them. There were other measures which they still thought did not work well. But he did not think that in the Conservative ranks, any more than on the other side of the House there, was any desire for change; they were ready to accept the existing state of things. There was a general feeling in the country against pushing democratic reforms too far; and he thought that those Gentlemen who were considered the leaders of democratic progress in this country, if they were candid and acknowledged the truth, would admit that there was a disposition now to remain tranquil. The number of those who cheered them was fewer, and the cheers 165 were less vociferous. So far as lie had been able to observe from significant speeches of hon. Members to their constituents, the former were sensible of the influence of this spirit of Conservatism, and also felt that there was a disposition, even on the part of those who sat on the same side of the House as themselves, not to push reforms farther. These Gentlemen acted judiciously for the promotion of their own cause. He elicited from their speeches that they began to contemplate getting more out of the Conservative side of the House than they got from their own quondam friends. It appeared to him that these hon. Gentlemen were beginning to follow the historical example of the Praetorian Guards of the Roman Empire, who put the empire up to auction, and sold it to the highest bidder. He really thought that they were showing great dexterity, great knowledge of human nature, and that they were wise in their generation, considering that they were a minority in the House and not a large one, and that in the present state of parties they could make either the Opposition or their old friends a majority, and thus to a certain degree held the scale in their hands. He saw the policy of such a course; and he had no doubt they would carry out the policy with perfect consistency. What he did not see was any possible gain the Conservatives could have in lending themselves to such a combination. The Conservative party, whether in or out of office, had but one course to pursue, and that was to maintain Conservative principles. Twice in the course of the last few years a Conservative Administration had attained a brief tenure of office, and the results of that experience must have convinced the Conservative party that to accept office whilst they were in a minority in this House was not to further Conservative policy, and did not tend to elevate the Conservative character. He believed that if the experiment were made at the present time by the Conservatives of governing the country, it would be injurious to their character, their position, and the reputation they enjoyed in the country. He believed that gradually, certainly not quite so speedily, but eventually with much greater stability, the Conservative party would again be at the head of affairs. He believed they would be at the head of affairs because they would gain the confidence of the constituencies at large; and that they would be supported by a clear 166 and undoubted Conservative majority in that House. That day would come; perhaps it might not be a very distant day, but he was quite sure that the great majority of the Conservative party would never wish again to accept office until that state of things arrived.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to make a few observations with regard to the events in the Levant and the proposed cession of the Ionian Islands. He wished to know how the cession of these Islands to Greece was reconcilable with the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government, particularly by the noble Lord at the head of it—a policy which he had pursued at all periods —the policy of maintaining the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire? A country like Greece commanded the affection of all enlightened and educated people. It had recently made a revolution, in which the inhabitants had deposed the Sovereign given to them thirty years ago; and now we were making them a present of this territory which had practically formed part of the British dominions since 1815. The Ionian Islands were given to us to hold because they excited the ambition of other great Powers of Europe, who at one time or other had possessed them, to protect them from the recurrence of those attempts, and they had been practically treated as part of the possessions of the Crown of England. In fact, it was not till 1848, when that unfortunate power of self-government was made over to them upon the wildest democratic principles, by a Government of which the noble Lord was himself a leading Member, that any difficulty was found in dealing with them. Now, as regarded the integrity and independence of the Turkish empire—that political formula with which the noble Lord's name was associated—how was it likely to be affected by this surrender? We were giving the Greeks an extension of territory, with a fortress which we had made one of the strongest in Europe; and then they were told that they were to put it to no use; whereas the use which they would consider legitimate would be to recover some part of their ancient possessions. The fortress of Corfu fronted immediately the Turkish territory of Albania, from which it was separated by a strait so narrow that it might be crossed in a fisherman's boat. Then they told the Greeks a contradictory story—in the one 167 case, that they gave them these Islands, and in the other, that they were to have them but not to make use of them; and yet the only use the Greeks could make of Corfu would be to attack the country of Albania, which is in a chronic state of rebellion against the Turkish Government. Looking, then, at this cession as so contradictory in itself, and so eminently opposed to the conduct of the noble Lord in regard to the fortress of Belgrade, he could not regard it as an emanation of that perfect wisdom which came from judgment and calm deliberation, but as one of those expedients by means of which Governments from time to time got out of difficulties that occurred to them. He quite concurred in the generous feeling that had dictated this act on the part of Her Majesty's Government; but having regard to the fact that the Government of Greece was not particularly stable or sufficiently powerful to protect them from the aggression of other Powers—for nobody could say that Russia or France might not pounce upon them—he was bound to consider the proceeding as more a matter of generosity on the part of the Government than an act of wise statesmanship, or as the result of the deliberate opinion of the country, or even of the more intelligent portion of the Ionians themselves. Then he would like to ask, if it was the constitutional doctrine of the prerogative of the Crown that a Minister acting for the Crown can give up any portion of the territory belonging to it without ascertaining what the feeling of the Parliament and the country is—if that were so, was it a desirable thing to do it? Could they give away Canada in the same way? He contended that they were by no means to take as conclusive and authoritative the proceedings of a Government during the recess, when no longer subject to the supervision of Parliament, and that all such matters must be left entirely open to be dealt with as Parliament may think fit. Turning to another subject, he thought with the hon. Member for Radnorshire (Sir John Walsh) that there could be no greater delusion than to suppose that there was a Tory reaction in this country, or that there was a disposition in the country to support the Conservative party, except on the understanding that it would act in a reasonably Liberal spirit. Any chance indication, such as an individual election, might be a false barometer of the public feeling. There 168 could be no doubt that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) was personally popular with the country — a remit duo to a great extent to his great physical and intellectual activity at a venerable stage of human existence; and this was shown by the fact that when a Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House offered himself for election he declared that he would not offer any factious opposition to the noble Lord. The only pledge that ever he took himself was something of that kind, which he had endeavoured to fulfil always in so far as it was compatible with public utility. Therefore, he warned them against that epidemic delusion which came up at the end of last Session, should it rise again, that no such combination as that of the Gentlemen on his side of the House with the Radicals would succeed. He believed that the Tory and Radical cross, if attempted this Session, would be a complete failure. he believed that it belonged to those who were not Radicals, and yet did not go for Tory dominion—that is to say, for the independent Members—to turn the scale if any such combination as was attempted last Session should be tried again. If those two parties had any principles at all, no two elements ought to be so dissimilar. They did not, of course, know what might be in prospect this Session. There was a lull at present; but he did not think that any such patched-up combination as that to which he had referred—comprising the most dissimilar elements—would be likely to succeed.
§ Address agreed to:—To be presented by Privy Councillors.