Lords Sitting of 16 March 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BIILS.—la Customs' Duties; Racehorse Duty Act Amendment; Cinque Ports Act Amendment; Pauper Maintenance.
2aIncome Tax; Indemnity; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c.; Extra Parochial Places; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.
3a Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act Amendment.

THE INCOME TAX.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved—That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I need hardly assure your Lordships that it is not my intention to avail myself of the present opportunity for offering any objection to the Bill, the second reading of which has just been moved in silence by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. At the same time I cannot conceal the expression of my regret that it has not been found consistent with the public service to defer the consideration of a measure so important as this until the new Parliament, which is about to be summoned, should be enabled to take it into consideration in connection with the whole of the financial state of the country. That Parliament will, in my judgment, greatly fail in one of its first and most responsible duties if in the earliest period of its existence it does not take into active and serious consideration the whole state of the finances and taxation of the country. I need not remind your Lordships that with respect to legislation on the subject of taxation, your Lordships have nothing more to do than that which simply consists in bearing your allotted portion of the burden: and, although I have heard in various quarters of propositions to the effect that taxation and representation should be coextensive, I have never heard, and I do not expect to hear, of any proposition either for relieving your Lordships from the pressure of taxation which you have no voice in imposing, or for giving to your Lordships, in your legislative capacity, the power of
  2312
  dealing with our revenue, or, in your individual capacity, the right which belongs to the humblest elector in the country to choose the representatives who enact the imposition of taxation. Nevertheless, as you have that slight interest is taxation which is involved in having to pay it, I do not think the subject altogether unworthy of your consideration.
  My Lords, I confess I look with deep anxiety on the present state of the finances of the country. For some time past, but especially within the last few years, it has been considered the cardinal point and test of every Government that at the earliest possible moment the income tax, so universally condemned in public opinion, and in the eye of every public man, would cease, and that thenceforth it would be considered, as heretofore it had, as a most efficient and useful engine in time of war, but should be kept strictly and exclusively for the emergencies and extraordinary expenses of war, and be struck out altogether from the system of taxation in time of peace. I had undoubtedly indulged the sanguine expectation, and have not yet altogether abandoned the hope, that we might with the year 1860 see the realization of that which I call the "pledge" given by the Government of 1853, that, at the expiration of seven years, namely, in 1860, the income tax should altogether cease and determine; but I am bound to point out and submit to the Government the present position of the finances, which, I confess, unless some vigorous and active measures are taken, leave me little expectation that that pledge can be fulfilled. In the present year the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculates on having a surplus of somewhere about £500,000. It was a portion of the arrangements made in 1853 that in order to provide for the final abolition of the income tax in 1860 that tax should be reduced, from the 5th of April, 1857, from 7d. to 5d. in the pound, and so to remain until its final extinction. But the war supervened; and so far from its being possible to reduce the income tax during the continuance of the war, it was found necessary to double its amount from 7d. to 14 d. in the first instance, and subsequently to increase it still further to 16 d. in the pound. The last Act was introduced by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Act which preceded it bore on its face that the income tax levied for the war should continue for one year after the conclusion

  2313
  of the peace and no longer. The Act introduced by the present Government professed to bear the same condition on its face, and to be nothing more than the extension of the amount of the tax from 14 d. to I6 d. in the pound; but by that which has been represented to be a mere slip of the pen—a mere casual error—it did so turn out that from the wording of the Act—"the period at which peace shall be concluded and ratified"—the letter of the law, which professed to keep the extraordinary taxation for one year after the termination of the war, practically continued it for two years. It was admitted on all hands that that was not the intention of Parliament, and it was loudly declared by the Government that they would be ashamed to take advantage of so paltry a quibble. Now, if they did not choose to avail themselves of so paltry a quibble, the simple process would have been to repeal the Act from the time at which it was intended to cease; the consequence of which would have been that on the 5th of April next ensuing the income tax would have been reduced to 5d. in the pound; and I cannot but express my deep regret, on account of the principle involved, that under these circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have taken advantage of that casual error in the Act of Parliament, not, indeed, for the purpose of keeping up the whole war tax for the present year, but of making an addition of 2d. in the pound, and that for the ordinary purposes of taxation, beyond the amount to which it was the intention of Parliament the tax should be reduced. You may say what you please, but that act on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an act to the extent of 2d. in the pound—which means £2,000,000—to increase the amount of the income tax for ordinary, and not for extraordinary, revenue. I regret deeply that which appears to be in principle an invasion of the arrangements laid down in 1853. But with this addition of £2,000,000, taking into consideration all the other heads of ordinary revenue, the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculates that in the year 1857–58 he will have a surplus of £500,000. That calculation of surplus revenue proceeds on the assumption that the expense of the war with Persia will not exceed £250,000, and also on the further assumption that there will be no extraordinary demand on the resources of the country in the present year. Consequently, no provision is made for that most calamitous war—and, I am afraid,
  2314
  most expensive war—in which we are unhappily involved, by no choice of our own, with China. But upon the impossible assumption that the war with China will cost nothing, and on the improbable assumption that the war with Persia will cost no more than £250,000, the balance of revenue over expenditure in the present year will give, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a surplus of only £500,000, and to make that surplus of £500,000 you will receive in the present year a half-year's amount of the 9d. war income tax, amounting in round numbers to £4,500,000. That source of revenue will fail you altogether in 1858. Therefore you will have your revenue in 1858, as compared with 1857, diminished in the first place by £4,500,000 of war income tax. If the law stands without alteration that revenue will hereafter be diminished by a fall on the 5th of April next year of income tax from 7d. to 5d., which would make a further reduction of £2,000,000, or, making allowance for a half-year of that 2d. to be collected, it would make the reduction of £1,000,000. Therefore you would have in the revenue in 1858, as compared with 1857, a deficiency of £5,500,000. But, in addition, there is a provision that in 1858 there shall commence a sinking fund to provide for the debt raised by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, which will swell your expenditure in 1858 above 1857 to the amount of nearly £1,500,000. Therefore, there is a prospect that in 1858 there will be a diminished revenue of £5,500,000, and an increased expenditure of £1,500,000, leaving a balance to deficit of nearly £7,000,000, against which you have to set your surplus of the present year of £500,000. So you stand at present. You find, by the programme of the Government, that with no extraordinary expenses, and with war with Persia and China, you have a deficiency in 1858 of £6,500,000. I will not go so far forward as 1860, when you will recollect that to carry out the plan of 1853 the whole of the remaining income tax is to be sacrificed, which will make a further reduction of £5,000,000, because there will be some items falling in,—such as £1,300,000 of long annuities; and there will be a cessation of the payments, amounting to £2,000,000, on account of Exchequer bonds. It is sufficient to assume that in consequence of the further falling off of £5,000,000 of income tax, the deficiency will be increased in that year as compared

  2315
  with the preceding years. But you have a permanent deficiency from this year to the amount of no less than £6,500,000. I ask, are not these circumstances worthy of the serious consideration of Parliament? I ask your Lordships what hope can be seriously entertained that the expectation will be realized that in the year 1860, or at any subsequent period, we shall be relieved from the intolerable pressure of the income tax? My Lords, there are three modes by which we may attain to a balance between revenue and expenditure, and it may be done by one or all of the three. In the first place, this balance may be obtained by the increased productiveness of the present taxes; or, secondly, by the imposition of new taxes; or, thirdly, by the institution of a rigid system of economy in the national expenditure. I fear that we may have occasion to apply to all three. My Lords, I lay great stress upon the elasticity of the national revenue when it is relieved from the pressure of the direct taxation that weighs it down; but it would be folly to suppose that the increased productiveness of the existing taxes could raise the revenue to anything approaching £6,500.000 in the course of a single year. With regard to the second mode, I know with what distaste and distrust the country looks to the imposition of new taxes in time of profound peace. There remains, then, the third mode—a close and rigid attention to economy, and a strict reduction of national expenditure. The principal branches of that national expenditure are, first, the payment of the national debt, which cannot be reduced, except under peculiar circumstances, with due regard to faith towards the public creditor; next I come to the civil establishments, in which I do not think any material reduction can be effected; and then comes the third great branch of expenditure, the Army, the Navy, and the Miscellaneous Estimates. My Lords, it is in this third branch, and in this alone, that any considerable reduction of expenditure can take place. Now, my Lords, I should be one of the last to wish to see the military establishments of this country reduced below a state of efficiency. I should be sorry to see them reduced to the point at which they were kept between the years 1840 and 1850. I think that such a state of our military establishments is not consistent either with the honour or the safety of the country. The only principle which I recommend is that which combines economy with a direct regard to
  2316
  the efficiency of the public service, and that which I am most anxious to vindicate and support is the necessity of keeping your military and naval establishments organically as strong as you can in all that relates to science, and that which cannot be produced on the spur of the moment or in the efflux of a moderate space of time, but placing your army in that state of efficiency in which it is the duty of the Government and of the country to place it—organically strong, but numerically as low as is consistent with the duties it has to perform in time of peace. I lay this down as a principle, but I shall not pretend to enter into details on this subject. With regard to the Miscellaneous Estimates, they have increased most formidably in the last few years, and this not from any fault of this or that Government, but from the pressure and extravagance of Parliament itself. It has formerly been the theory that Parliament ought to be the check upon the tendency of Governments to spend money; but with regard to the Miscellaneous Estimates the duties and positions of these two bodies have been reversed, and the Government has been the check, hut not a sufficient check, upon the extravagance of Parliament. I do not propose to go further into this subject, and I will therefore only urge upon the consideration of your Lordships and the country that if it is desirable to get rid of the income tax, and if we do not wish to see it incorporated as a permanent part of our system of taxation, we must, in the years between this and 1860, apply ourselves vigorously and rigidly to such a system of economy and of reduction in our expenditure as is consistent with the attainment of that object, and so as to render it possible to square our balance of revenue and expenditure.
  My Lords, it is quite obvious that the expenditure of this country—more especially with respect to the nature and extent of your warlike establishments—depends upon the system of policy that is to be pursued, and more especially upon the system of foreign policy that is to be pursued by the Government. If you determine that that policy shall be one of respect for the independence and for the rights of foreign nations—of studious abstinence from interfering with the purely internal concerns of other countries—of an anxiety to avoid by every possible means a language, tone, and temper which shall show you ready to substitute in case of fancied insult and

  2317
  injury a tone of menace and braggadocio for that of reason and conciliation—if you are slow to take offence and ready to give reparation—prompt to receive explanation when it is tendered in a friendly spirit by other Governments—if you do this I have no fear, in the present condition of the world, and with the general feeling that prevails in nearly all foreign nations, that the exigencies of the public service cannot be maintained without keeping up large war establishments in time of peace. But if you proceed upon an opposite policy, and are determined to meddle in the internal concerns of other countries,—if you attempt to dictate the tone in which they shall deal with their own subjects, and interfere with them when the interests of your own subjects are not concerned,—if you threaten, and bully, and use the language of menace and intimidation towards other Powers, the weakest of whom must have too much pride to endure—when you tell them how to behave towards their own subjects,—if you adopt such a course of conduct, I take the liberty to tell your Lordships that you must keep your establishments upon a war footing—that you must be prepared to back up your Government in every petty quarrel in which they may involve you, that you must be ready to provide on the shortest notice for a war that may spread over the whole face of the world; and, my Lords, above all, if you lay down this formidable and dangerous principle, that your subordinate officers in every part of the world shall have the power at their discretion of committing this country to a war—if you lay down the further principle that, right or wrong, after they have done those acts they must be approved and supported as a point of honour by the Government at home—and if you lay down the further principle that those acts, being thus approved by the Government, it is beyond the competence of Parliament to take cognizance of those transactions, with the view of condemning them, upon pain of being charged with a factious combination against the Government—then, my Lords, you may give up the idea of reducing your army, you must hold yourselves armed cap-à-pie for the fight, and you must be ready to plunge into the horrors of war in every part of the world at the discretion of men proud of their brief authority, and ready to make the most of the confidence of the Government at home.
  And this, my Lords, leads me to the
  2318
  peculiar circumstances under which an appeal is to be made to the country. Your Lordships need not apprehend that I am about to enter into the merits of the China war, or to examine the legality of the proceedings of Sir John Bowring, or the prudence of the steps he has taken. I am going to assume, for the present, that the whole of those steps were legal; but I desire to point out to your Lordships the position in which this country is placed by the adoption of these assumed legal proceedings of Sir John Bowring. It is no little inconvenience and no slight public evil that in the month of March, just at the commencement of the Session, and when the House of Commons were about to commence the business of the country, we should be interrupted in our proceedings by a dissolution of Parliament—a dissolution that creates the greatest possible inconvenience both to public and private affairs, and which involves not only the loss of time of the dissolution itself, but that further loss of time caused by the arrangements consequent upon the meeting of the new Parliament, and which will render this coming Parliament even more unproductive of beneficial measures than was promised us in the very meagre programme of the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the present Session. My Lords, of course that inconvenience is to be endured. I shall be told that the Government having had a hostile vote passed against them it became necessary for them either to resign or to appeal to the country. But, my Lords, whose fault was it that a question was ever raised involving the character or credit of the Government? I am going very humbly to offer my apology for your Lordships' House and for the House of Commons for having so far misunderstood the spirit of the constitution as to believe that it was within their competence to take notice, and, having taken notice, to express an individual opinion upon the conduct of any official with regard to whose proceedings the Government, by command of Her Majesty, had laid papers and documents before Parliament. I may be mistaken, but I certainly believed that when papers are laid upon the table by Her Majesty's Government it is for the very purpose of inviting an expression of the opinion of Parliament upon them. My Lords, I conceive it cannot be said that, in respect either to this or the other House of Parliament, we have been anxious to interfere with the discharge of the duties of the Executive,

  2319
  or that we have interposed any obstacles in the way of the exercise of those functions which properly belong to the Crown. They have exhibited no impatience—they have on the contrary displayed a degree of forbearance which I do not blame, but which I venture to say is almost unparalleled in the history of this country. What is the case with regard to the war in Persia? A quarrel has been entered into, troops have been despatched, war has been declared, an expedition has been sent out, a fortress has been taken, negotiations have been entered into, negotiations have been concluded, peace has been made:—and from the first to the last, from the hour when the quarrel began to the moment when I am addressing your Lordships, the House of Lords and the House of Commons have not had one single scrap of paper or one single official document which shows the object, the cause, the intentions of the war, or the terms on which it is terminated; and the House of Commons, which ought to furnish Supplies upon an estimate of expenses, are not likely to know anything about that expense until they are called on to pay the bill already discharged by Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I say the House of Lords and the House of Commons have displayed no undue anxiety to interfere with the Government or to hamper or embarrass the Executive. But, when papers are laid before Parliament, it is an invitation on the part of the Crown for Parliament to express its opinion on the subject matter of those papers; and if we do not, we grossly neglect our duty, as by tacit acquiescence we may be assumed to sanction acts most repugnant to our feelings and most objectionable in themselves. What has taken place in this instance? Upon the perusal of these papers a Motion was made in the other House of Parliament by a gentleman usually, I believe, a supporter of Her Majesty's Government, and most undoubtedly wholly unconnected with the Conservative party. That Motion expressed on the face of it—I forget the precise words—the opinion of the House of Commons, that the papers laid on the table failed to afford sufficient justification for the officials in China. I gave notice and brought forward in this House a Motion varying in terms, but entirely to the same effect; and what was the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government in both Houses? Why, they assumed to themselves the whole responsibility of the conduct and judgment of Sir John Bowring;
  2320
  they made themselves parties; they insisted on being sentenced, or rather they insisted that Parliament should either forbear expressing an opinion or be charged with a desire to censure or displace Her Majesty's Government. Now, I will venture to say that if, instead of Her Majesty's Government vindicating to the uttermost the conduct of their agents, they had come forward in the first instance and expressed their own honest and sincere convictions, that, with the best intentions, a hasty and ill-judged step taken by the Plenipotentiary had involved consequences which they were the first to regret, and the last to contemplate; that they could not altogether vindicate the course he had pursued, but that allowance ought to be made for the difficulty of the position in which he was placed, and concluding with an intimation of their intention to do that which they have done subsequently, to send out another Plenipotentiary with full powers, if not to supersede, at least to override the authority of that official, and to bring the affair to the earliest conclusion possible—then I will venture to say that that declaration on the part of the Government would in this and the other House have pat an end, if not to all discussion and debate, undoubtedly to any chance of an adverse division. But what was the course of the Government? Here is the proposition—that the papers, as they lie before us, do not justify the conduct of the officials. Her Majesty's Government join issue, and declare that, in their judgment, the papers do justify the conduct of the officials. They compel us to say "Aye" or "No;" and yet it is quite obvious that, towards the conclusion of the debate, some change came over the spirit of the dream of the Government, because, towards the end of it, their supporters said, "After all, it is very hard that the Government here should be held responsible for what has been done by the officials there, of which they had no previous cognizance, which was done without notice to them—which was done on the other side of the world; and it is very cruel to make them responsible for the conduct of their agents. It was not we or the other House of Parliament, but they who made themselves responsible for the conduct of their agents. And here let me warn the Government. However unanimous it may seem, however grand it may sound, to say that on all occasions a public servant—more especially an absent public servant—is to be defended, you ought only to carry

  2321
  that as far as is consistent with justice:—you may carry it even as far as is consistent with indulgence, but when it comes to the point that by the indiscretion of a public servant the country is plunged in a war, the expenses of which are not to be calculated, and the horrors of which are not to be told, then, I say, if that public servant is to receive the support of the Government to the extent of insisting on dissolving Parliament if Parliament does not concur with them, you are giving a most exorbitant premium to imprudent conduct, to hasty actions, and to want of a due sense of their proper responsibility to every gentleman you employ in every part of the world. But if you considered the conduct of your agent so entirely blameless—if you thought the papers quite justified his prudence, and showed him to be the fittest man to conduct affairs of that kind—why supersede him? I know not whether the determination to send out that superseding officer was come to before or after the division of the House of Commons, but in either case it affords to the majority of that House ample vindication for the vote to which they came. If it were the intention of Government previous to that debate to supersede Sir John Bowring, in the first place they ought frankly to have said so, which would have put an end to the discussion; and, in the next place, it argues a foregone conclusion in their minds that the papers did not justify the conduct of Sir John Bowring. If that intention were only formed after the decision of the House of Commons had shown what was the opinion of the representatives of the country, I say the House of Commons performed a signal service in compelling the Government, by their rote, to do that which they ought to have done voluntarily. In either case the vote of that majority is amply justified, if only by the fact that, having vainly attempted to vindicate his conduct, the Government proceeded to supersede Sir John Bowring. The moment, my Lords, that majority was declared there arose a cry of "factious combination," "unnatural coalition," "unprincipled attempt to overthrow the Government.'' There arose charges most revolting to the feelings of every honourable man—charges which I shall prove to be as base as they are unfounded,—charges which I do not think any of your Lordships, at all events, will have the courage to stand forward and support. For myself I will only say—and I say it on the word and honour
  2322
  of a Peer and of a gentleman—I do not know, and I have not known, of any concert, of any combination, of any agreement, of any understanding with regard to those votes and those Motions in either House of Parliament between any persons not professing precisely the same political opinions. I distinctly and solemnly declare I have been no party to such concert or combination; and I as emphatically declare my solemn conviction that the vote arrived at in the House of Commons was the result of no combination, of no concert, still less of any desire to coalesce against the Government for political objects, but that it was the spontaneous expression of opinion, reluctantly expressed by many, with regard to the conduct of officials whom the Government supported. My Lords, what I have stated now will, I hope, carry conviction to the minds of all those with whom I have the honour of personal acquaintance, and I trust also to the minds of many more to whom I am not personally known. But I will proceed to state facts which I think will convince the most sceptical that there cannot have been any coalition of this kind. Your Lordships, will, perhaps, have done me the honour of recollecting that upon the first night of the Session, having no information but what was to be derived from the public papers, I expressed great anxiety with regard to the position of affairs in China. I expressed doubts as to the legality and prudence of the course pursued, and great apprehensions that the course pursued would be productive of signal disaster. Shortly afterwards the papers were laid upon the table of the House, and I made it my duty most carefully and most anxiously to examine their contents. The information furnished by Her Majesty's Government strengthened and confirmed the impression which I had previously received from the public prints. I gave notice accordingly of my intention to bring forward certain Resolutions, and at the same time I asked to be furnished with other papers necessary to the full elucidation of the case. I thank the Government for the ready courtesy with which they furnished every information on the subject; but, having read those papers, I came to the conclusion that it was my bounden duty to bring that case under the consideration of your Lordships. I did not mention that intention of mine to above three or four persons of those most intimately and politically connected with me; and until the time I came into this House and

  2323
  laid the Resolutions on the table, I believe I am literally correct in saying no human being had seen those Resolutions or was responsible for one syllable they contained. I am responsible for them wholly. If the House of Commons is to be accused of factious coalition and unprincipled combination, why is not the same charge and the same imputation made here? The charge is as applicable to one House as to the other. How was the party formed which supported my Resolution in your Lordships' House? Not only of those noblemen who usually sit upon this side, and share to a great extent in my political opinions, but it comprised also the two noble Earls opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen and Earl Grey), and the noble Lord the Comptroller of the Exchequer (Lord Mont-eagle). My Resolution was also supported by a noble Earl than whom there is not a more stanch supporter of Her Majesty's Government, nor a more decided Whig of the old school; I was supported by the high authority of Earl Fitzwilliam, and Her Majesty's Government do not appear to have borne him any ill-will for his share in this supposed combination, if I may assume for a fact the statement which has been made in the public journals, that his eldest son has recently been appointed Lord-Lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire. I said I had no combination or concert with any person before I came into this House, and I spoke the exact and literal truth. But when I came into this House I took an opportunity of showing to my noble and learned Friend now at the table (Lord Lyndhurst) the Resolution which I had prepared, and I had the good fortune to find that it met with his entire approval. There was at the time sitting by my noble and learned Friend a Whig Peer, a man of great eminence, a distinguished and cordial supporter of Her Majesty's Government. He asked if I would allow him to see the Resolution. I said certainly, if he wished it. Having read over the Resolution carefully, he asked me whether I had any objection to strike out one phrase. I replied I had not, and gave the noble Lord a pen, with which he made the erasure he desired. I then laughingly observed, "As you have altered my Resolution to meet your views, I hope to have your support." And I gained it. That was the only combination I entered into. That noble Lord is a leading Whig Peer and a supporter of the present Government; he, however, is my
  2324
  accomplice in this unprincipled combination. So much for the House of Lords. Now, I am bound to defend, if defence be necessary, my political friends in the House of Commons from the charge of being concerned in what undoubtedly would have been a most unprincipled act. Shortly before I gave notice of my Motion in your Lordships' House, but after making my statement in the debate upon the Address, at a time when the House of Commons was occupied and its attention almost entirely engrossed by the discussion upon the Budget, a right hon. Friend of mine with whom I am in constant and intimate political communication, asked me whether I did not think the subject of China was one that it was desirable to bring before the House of Commons, for in that case he was willing to make a Motion upon it. I said I fully concurred in his opinion, and that I thought it was a case which Parliament could not possibly pass over; but I advised him not to give any notice until he had communicated with one or two political friends, more especially with the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Conservative party in the other House. My right hon. Friend some twenty-four hours afterwards came to me and said, "I have acted upon your advice, and have given no notice; but I am sorry to tell you that Mr. Cobden has taken the matter out of our hands and has given a notice upon the subject of China which will prevent me from doing anything." Now, my Lords, I will go further and tell you a little more of our conversation, to show how much foundation there is for this cry of "coalition." My right hon. Friend expressed to me his apprehension that the fact of the subject of China being brought forward by a person whose views generally he dissented from entirely might indispose some of those who agree with us from giving their support to a Motion which they could not in strict reason or justice resist. We have it, too, upon the high authority of Mr. Cobden—a gentleman with whom I have not the least acquaintance, and have never, I believe, exchanged a word either upon this or any other subject—we have his declaration in the House of Commons that before he brought forward his Resolutions he communicated them to no one except his intimate Friend, Mr. Gibson, the Member for Manchester. Am I to vindicate myself and my friends from a charge of combining to procure the factious overthrow of the Government with Lord John Russell,

  2325
  with Sir Francis Baring, with Lord Robert Grosvenor, and other most distinguished and faithful adherents of the Whig party? Yet all those Members voted in the majority, and all, I presume, on the slanderous reports which are spread abroad, are regarded as accomplices in this "base and infamous coalition." The majority in the other House comprised many supporters of the Government; I may venture to say that it comprised, almost without exception, beyond those actually in the Government, every man of note of every party in that House. Of the party which goes by the name of "Peelites," but who do not appear to me to act in greater concert than other people, we saw Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Cardwell, all of them joining in the vote of the majority, and yet three out of those four gentlemen are certainly infinitely more disposed to support Her Majesty's Government than to adopt the policy of the party sitting opposite to them. There were Lord John Russell, Sir Francis Baring, and Lord Robert Grosvenor in the majority to represent the great Whig party, and I presume we shall hardly be charged with combining and coalescing with Mr. Cobden and Mr. Gibson, or with Mr. Roebuck, the representative of the extreme Radicals. The very absurdity of the supposed combination is its own best refutation in the minds of all calm judging men. I can understand that for political objects two parties, not materially differing in their general views, and who think that between them they will be able to carry on the affairs of Government, may agree to sink minor differences, and combine to attain a political object; but for such a combination to exist of five different parties, all differing from each other upon almost every political question, is so complete an absurdity that the charge of factious combination must be scouted as ridiculous. This cry of combination and coalition is nothing new. It is the usual resort of a Government when it finds opinion in Parliament too strong for it, and is obliged to resort to public opinion. And what is Parliament to do in such cases? A Motion is submitted in which the conduct of the Government is impugned. If it is supported only by gentlemen of one set of political opinions then it is said to be a mere party question or trial of strength. If, however, the facts of the case are so strong as to induce many of the habitual supporters of the Government to assent to
  2326
  the Motion, then we are told it is a factious combination,—an unprincipled coalition. I have heard it said, too, that the merits of the case were so much in favour of the Government that even some of our own Conservative supporters felt bound to uphold the policy of the Ministers. Now, my Lords, I have never for one moment questioned the judgment or the discretion, still less have I questioned the motives, of any gentleman who upon that occasion voted against his own party. I have assumed, as I was bound to do, that every gentleman who so voted did so from a conviction that the Government had not merited the censure of Parliament. There were, to be sure, reasons assigned by some hon. Gentlemen for their votes which do not appear to me to bear conclusively upon the decision they arrived at. We were told that gentlemen could not vote against the Government which made such excellent ecclesiastical appointments. Now, my Lords, I am not able to trace the connexion between the two things, when we are told that the Government makes excellent ecclesiastical appointments, and that therefore Sir John Bowring was justified in making war upon Canton. However, if the justification of being governed in the vote by the strength of the case is good for one side it is good for the other—
  "Damus hanc veniam petimusque vicissim."
  If we are told the case was so strong in favour of the Government that your own supporters would not stand by you, are we not entitled to say the facts were so strong that men of all parties, differing upon all other points, had no resource but reluctantly to vote against the Government? What do we learn from addresses now being issued by Members of the House of Commons to their constituents? There is hardly one of those addresses which does not say circumstances have occurred at Canton which are very much to be regretted, and that it would have been very much better if Sir John Bowring had waited until he received instructions from home. They cannot say his conduct was justifiable; but then comes in "the infamous coalition," which overrides all considerations of justice, and authorized hon. Members to vote that Sir John Bowring's conduct was justified by the papers presented to Parliament, while in their addresses to their constituents those hon. Members frankly admit that his conduct was not justified. As I have said, this cry of combination is nothing new. Let me read to

  2327
  the House the language of a very eminent statesman when a similar question was raised in the House of Commons. He
  says:—
  "The hon. and learned Gentleman has demanded a full explanation of the circumstances under which that vote will be given. Sir, he shall have that explanation. I have no reserve. The hon. and learned Member has stated that there is a dishonourable conspiracy formed against Her Majesty's Government. Sir, a more unfounded charge never was preferred. He presumes that there has been some base compromise between Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House, but folding different opinions upon matters of vital interest. He is wholly mistaken. There has been no such compromise. He talks of there being three courses to pursue; he tells us there are three combinations by which office may be obtained. He says, 'I demand to know which of these three courses you contemplate.' Now, is it not possible for the hon. and Learned Gentleman to suppose that there may be a fourth? Is it not possible for him to speculate upon the possibility that men in this House may intend to give their votes without reference to political combinations? Does he exclude the possibility of that fourth course of action, which arises from a conscientious conviction as to the truth? Is that excluded from his contemplation? May it not be possible I that men cannot subscribe to a Resolution which asserts that a certain course has been best calculated to preserve peace and to support the honour and dignity of this country? Is it not possible that, without reference to party or personal interests, men may decline to affirm a Resolution which deals with principles of greater importance to the welfare of this country for good or for evil than have ever been under the consideration of the House."—[3 Hansard, cxij, 674.]
  Now, who were the parties on that occasion? By a singular coincidence the speech was made in the House of Commons in consequence of a Motion made by me in your Lordships' House censuring the policy of the Government, and referring especially to the department of it which was presided over by the noble Viscount now at the head of the Administration. He was the man whose conduct, censured by the House of Lords, he considered in so much doubt as to the judgment of the House of Commons that then, as now, he did not think it unworthy of him to raise the cry of "combination and conspiracy," and to attempt to bias the judgment of the House by the same cry, which his followers were raising with as much truth as now. The accuser was the same and the defendant was the same. And who were the parties involved in the guilt of that conspiracy? My Lords, I need hardly tell you that the eminent statesman whose language I have just quoted, whose indignant denial of those vile motives I have read to you, that that statesman, so charged
  2328
  with combination and conspiracy, was one who for four years had given them his constant and unvarying support—that that statesman was the late Sir Robert Peel—and that that speech was the last he addressed to Parliament but a few hours before the unhappy event which deprived the country of the services of that eminent man. But who was the man who put himself forward as the chivalrous defender of Viscount Palmerston on that occasion, and who moved the exculpatory Resolution in the House of Commons? That man was Mr. Roebuck, one of the present supporters and accomplices in this "base conspiracy." My Lords, I have given you facts to show, not the improbability, but the impossibility, of such a coalition. The very notion of it is too absurd for the veriest gobemouche who catches up and swallows the last newspaper canard; nay, it is even more absurd than that memorable story of wholesale massacre in America of which the most egregious dupe was the leading journal in this country. It is more incredible than anything the wildest stretch of imagination can picture. But I know well the ease with which, as has been somewhere said—
  "The bare-faced lie, launch'd with malignant force, When told by thousands is believed of course."
  I know the Antæus-like power with which calumny, refuted a dozen times, ever springs from the ground with additional strength; and, notwithstanding the solemn assertion I have made and the facts I have stated, nothing will surprise me less than to see the daily press teeming with repetitions of this base and unfounded calumny, or to find it made the stock-in-trade of electioneering addresses and speeches during the next three months. My Lords, I should not wish to say anything personal; but, by whomsoever and wheresoever that shall be said, written, or printed, I solemnly declare that that statement bears precisely that relation to truth which is expressed in very pithy and homely language in the first line of the quotation which I have just read to your Lordships.
  But, my Lords, how long is it since Her Majesty's Government has had this holy horror of combinations—how long is it since they discovered that, the votes of men not concurring in general political principles, but joining together on some particular occasions, must necessarily be given from factious and unworthy motives? I will not go back to the earlier history of

  2329
  the life of the noble Viscount at the head of Her Majesty's Government. No man is better qualified to speak of combinations than he, because no man hag had a tithe of the experience of them that he has had. I will not go back even to the commencement of the present Parliament; I will be satisfied with reverting to the present Session of Parliament, and recalling to your Lordships' recollection a certain Motion which was brought forward in the House of Commons by a supporter of the Government—a gentleman named Mr. Locke King—in favour of reform and an extension of the franchise. That Motion was opposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and to support his opposition to that Motion of his own supporters and adherents he brought into the field the magnificent number of thirty-one Members, of whom twenty-one were persons holding official situations. Against the whole of his own supporters were arrayed 179 Members,—thirty-one being the number of votes which the Government could raise when left to themselves, to their own resources, and to their own supporters. On that occasion was the "combination" rejected with scorn? No; the Conservative party, true to their principles, and casting aside all questions as to whom they were about to support or defend, came to the rescue of the noble Viscount, increased that miserable minority of 31 to 192, giving thereby a majority of 13 to the noble Lord, and that act of the Conservative party saved Her Majesty's Government from the fate of Actæon—from being devoured by their own hounds, and from disgrace and defeat. One little fortnight after that time the party who did this—who, regardless of political considerations, and looking only to principles, defended and supported the noble Viscount against his own adherents—passed a deliberate judgment on papers submitted to their consideration; and that party, who from the absence of factious motives saved his Government from annihilation on the former occasion, are now charged with a disgraceful coalition for the purpose of ousting the noble Viscount from office. My Lords, I ask you to put these two circumstances together, and say, if such a charge can be brought against either party, to which party it can be fairly applied.
  My Lords, it may be in the recollection of your Lordships that my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), in a speech on the Address, expressed a hope
  2330
  that in the matter of the Chinese war our officials abroad were not seeking a pretext for picking a quarrel for their own advantage. I entirely agree in the wish so stated by my noble and learned Friend, and I express my hope that in this question relating to the Chinese war Her Majesty's Government are not seeking a pretext for picking a quarrel to their own advantage. I think it is just possible that the Government, not feeling themselves quite comfortable on some questions that were likely to be submitted to Parliament, were not sorry to avail themselves of any favourable opportunity that might offer itself for dissolving the present Parliament, and that the result of the division on the Chinese question was regarded as a favourable occasion for the noble Viscount to appeal to the generous support and confidence of the country. My belief, however, is that this Chinese question will have no influence whatever at the coming elections; that it is not intended to have influence, except so far as it is connected with the cry of "combination and conspiracy;" but that the real question intended by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government to be propounded to the country will be, "Have I your confidence as the Minister of this country?" I say emphatically the noble Viscount at the head of Her Majesty's Government, because I must express my conviction that, as respects the colleagues of the noble Viscount, with the exception of some of my noble Friends on the opposite bench, there is not a man in the country, except himself, that does not consider them as merely appendages of the noble Viscount—valuable appendages certainly, but still appendages alone—and that it is not a question of confidence in the Members of the Government at large, but of confidence in the noble Lord at the head of the Government.
  Now, my Lords, I have adverted to one subject which was introduced rather fortuitously at the time—I mean the ecclesiastical appointments of the noble Viscount. That question I know has been and will be put prominently forward with regard to the coming elections. I am quite aware of the delicacy of treating a question of this kind, and more especially at the present time. Nevertheless, I will frankly state my opinion on a question which has excited, and continues to excite, a great deal of public consideration. I trust I shall be able so to express myself with reference to it as to

  2331
  give no offence to any human being, and least of all is it my desire to say one word in derogation of those prelates of the Church who, by a very unusual concurrence of circumstances, have been appointed to their present offices upon the recommendation of the noble Viscount. So far from doing that, I have not the honour of a personal acquaintance with any of them; but I know with regard to some, and I believe with regard to others, that they have been distinguished as men laborious, diligent, earnest, and zealous in the sacred profession to which they belong; I know that some of them have been energetic in the discharge of parochial duties in some of the largest parishes, and I am therefore not disposed to say one single word in derogation of the appointment of those right rev. Prelates. But the more they are all such as I am willing to believe they are, the more I think they will be likely to regret the use that is made of their names for party purposes—the more must they regret to see, for mere party purposes, their votes paraded and put in invidious contrast with those of others of their right rev. brethren, and their appointments praised and lauded, not on account of their personal qualifications, but because they are supposed, whether rightly or wrongly, to represent one of the extreme sections of the religious parties which unhappily exist in the Church of England. Do not let me be misunderstood. I have no sympathy with what are called Tractarian views. I believe that the Tractarian party, by their injudicious course of proceeding, have tended infinitely to the injury and to the disruption of the Church of England. I believe that they have tended materially to alienate the minds of a large portion of the community from the doctrines and from the teaching of that Church, and I believe they have produced a consequent amount of reaction, which is almost equally dangerous, upon the other side of the question. I think that they have assumed a tone of ecclesiastical authority and an assumption of power which are utterly inconsistent with the spirit and with the feelings of the present day—which might have been suited for ages long gone by, but which at the present time is intolerable, and will not be submitted to. I think, moreover, that they have fallen into the grievous error of introducing practices and ceremonies and forms which are either immaterial in themselves—and which, if immaterial in themselves, ought
  2332
  sedulously to have been avoided as raising causeless dissension and animosity,—or which, if more than mere forms and ceremonies, if they assume any further meaning, indicate an approximation which has unfortunately led to more than an approximation on the part of many of that party to a creed which, with all respect to its most amiable and virtuous professors, I cannot as a Protestant and a member of the Church of England but regard as religiously corrupt and politically dangerous. I have therefore no sympathy with the Tractarian party, and I conceive that nothing is more dangerous, nothing is more detrimental to the interests of the Church of England than the presence of that party in the Church. But because I entertain these opinions I am not necessarily therefore to throw myself into the other extreme; I am not necessarily to associate all my sympathies and all my feelings with those who profess a degree of latitudinarianism and pseudo-liberalism which leads them to fritter away, for the purpose of establishing a wider basis and including a larger number of persons within the folds of the Church, those doctrines which the reformed Church of England has held to be essential and vital. I have the greatest respect for the labours and the energies and the piety of many of the Dissenters of this country. There is room enough, God knows, for them and for the Church of England, in the common combat against vice, and irreligion, and immorality; and with regard to them I say, with all my heart, they that are not against us are on our side, and God speed them in the good work we are carrying on together. But, I confess it, my sympathies, my feelings, my affections are with that body of the Established Church—and, thank God, they are both numerous and of weight and influence!—who, preferring the religion of the closet to the excitement of the platform, with their Bible for their guide, with the ancient Fathers of the Church and with the modern lights of the Reformed Church as their commentators and assistants, are more ready to inculcate upon their hearers the practical precepts than the abstruse doctrines of religion; but who, nevertheless, maintaining the bond of unity in the Church, and maintaining it in the spirit of peace, are not prepared, for the sake of a false peace and of a false union, to compliment away any of those which the Church upholds as its fundamental and essential doctrines. My Lords, it is because those are my

  2333
  opinions, and because they are the opinions I believe of a very large number of the well-thinking and sound-thinking men of this country, that I regret that Her Majesty's Government should have thrown, or should have appeared to throw (for I will not say that they have thrown), or should be applauded for having appeared to throw, the whole weight of their influence and authority into one end of that scale within which the wise latitude of the Church of England allows a diversity of opinion. I am quite aware that these are topics which I ought almost to apologise for introducing to your Lordships, and yet in this House I know that they will be approached with respect, with reverence, with candour, and with fairness. But if I feel that these are topics which ought hardly to be dealt with here, I ask, how much less should they be made the subject of bitter political contest in the crowded arena of the hustings, in the exciting atmosphere of political strife, and amid all the ribald jesting and cries which often distinguish these election saturnalia? My Lords, I cannot but say that for the sake of the Church, of the Government, and of the country, it is most unfortunate (if it be the fact) that the Government should go to the country and appeal to the constituencies upon such a question as that of the leaning of the Ministry to one or the other of the different sections into which, as I have said, the Church of England is at present divided. I cannot conceive a more unhappy subject of contest; I cannot conceive one from the discussion of which more unmitigated evil must follow.
  But, my Lords, I go to topics which are less foreign to the ordinary business of your Lordships' House. The question before the country is this:—"Has the noble Viscount at the head of the Government a claim to the confidence of the country?" Before I answer that question I must look, as far as I am able to judge, to what has been and what is the supposed policy of the noble Viscount. With regard to his foreign policy, I am afraid I shall be repeating what I have so often said before to your Lordships in expressing my want of confidence in the discretion and the prudence with which the foreign affairs of this country have been conducted by the noble Viscount. I do not forget the events of 1848; I cannot forget the events of 1850, and the miserable affair to which I have lately referred; but passing by these, I look to the present moment, and I see that the noble Viscount continues, not in
  2334
  the most dignified manner, all that mischievous interference with the affairs of foreign countries which I have so constantly deprecated here. I do the noble Viscount all justice. I give him full credit for the manliness and the courage with which in 1855 (certainly with the popular voice and approval in his favour) he accepted the conduct of affairs and stepped forward as the adviser of the Sovereign; and I give him credit, together with his colleagues, for bringing to an issue, more or less successful, the war in which we were then engaged. But, my Lords, at the conclusion of that war I must say I cannot extend an unqualified approval either to the terms upon which peace was concluded, or, still less, to certain transactions which accompanied the signature of that peace. I think that in the Conferences of Paris the noble Viscount and those who acted with him fell into a most grievous error, and inflicted a grievous injury upon the maritime power of this country. I refer to that most ill-judged concession by which they sacrificed what had been maintained for ages as the maritime rights of Great Britain,—rights which, in my conscience, I believe to be essential to the maintenance of your maritime power—and without your maritime power I need hardly say that, after all, you are nothing. I think that that was a most unfortunate concession, and I think it the more unfortunate because it appears to me to have been wholly gratuitous and unnecessary. I come now to an act I have before adverted to in this House, and which I really think is as mischievous and as unjustifiable as any I ever heard of—I mean the interference with the affairs of Naples. We undoubtedly have had papers laid before us professing to explain the circumstances under which this interference took place; but so meagre a collection of documents—one throwing so little light, or, rather, such studious darkness upon any question it never happened to me to deal with. Throughout the whole forty-five pages contained in the blue-book there are only three which bear in the slightest degree upon what we wanted to know. The remainder consists entirely of reports of trials, memoranda (for the most part anonymous) referring to the affairs of Naples, but not bearing in the slightest degree upon the main question—namely, our right of interference in the affairs of an independent State. Now, I am not the apologist of the King of Naples; but you had not, upon the showing of these papers, the

  2335
  slightest pretext for supposing that any European interests were in danger, that any British subjects had suffered, or that you had anything to complain of which would justify you in going to the King of Naples with a recommendation from the Governments of England and France, advising His Majesty to enter upon a new course of internal policy. That claim of the right of interfering was undoubtedly rejected by the King of Naples, as it would have been by any Sovereign who had the slightest sense of his own dignity and independence. You recommended His Majesty to grant a general amnesty. Now, what had you to do with a general amnesty in Naples? Were the Neapolitans your subjects? What mattered it to you how the course of justice ran in Naples, provided British subjects did not suffer? Suppose, now, that some years before Her Majesty had been advised to grant to Mr. Smith O'Brien that free pardon to which his subsequent conduct has proved he was very well entitled, some other countries had come to you and had represented to you officially that it would be a great gratification to the people of Ireland if Her Majesty would be pleased to extend a free pardon to Mr. Smith O'Brien and his colleagues (I wont use an offensive word), and that they earnestly desired Her Majesty, for her own sake, to grant an amnesty to these gentlemen; what would have been the answer? The answer would unquestionably have been a much less civil one than that given by the King of Naples; you would very shortly have requested those Governments to take back again the official document in which they had given this advice, as one not to be received or listened to; and probably the next request made by the Foreign Minister would have been that the representatives of these foreign Governments should walk out of the House and not come into it again. Now, what did the King of Naples do? He writes you a letter firmly declining to listen to your recommendations, at the same time intimating his sense of the feeling manifested towards him and his country, and declaring that the adoption of such recommendations was incompatible with his rights as an independent Sovereign. There is no answer to that; but about two months afterwards the King appears to have been informed that the tone of his letter was not sufficiently courteous; upon which he writes again, expressing his anxiety to continue on the best possible terms with England, his determination
  2336
  to give every possible protection to British subjects, and his regret that a sense of what was due to his own independence and that of his country did not permit him to receive advice offered, no doubt, in the most friendly spirit by the Governments of England and France. What was the answer to that? The only answer was, the recall of your Minister. I do not know, my Lords, upon what pretext our Minister was withdrawn from Naples, or what had taken place to justify the suspension of diplomatic correspondence with a Sovereign who professed the most anxious desire to remain on friendly terms with England. What was the consequence? It was this—that the retirement of your Minister was treated as a matter utterly unimportant; in the face of all Europe the representative of Her Majesty was allowed to leave Naples in contemptuous silence, and with an assurance on the part of the Neapolitan Government that there need not be the slightest apprehension for the security of English and French subjects in their persons or property. I ask you, my Lords, do you think that England stands in a dignified position. If the noble Viscount had come to the determination to enforce a certain scheme of policy upon Naples, I could understand the course he pursued; but to utter menaces—to tender advice under the threat of withdrawing your Minister—to speak of the presence of hostile fleets—to give encouragement to persons who might have been induced by your promises of assistance to rise in insurrection against their Sovereign, and who, in that event, would have been subjected to all the severities to which those who have taken part in a suppressed insurrection are liable—was a line of conduct altogether unworthy of England. If such an insurrection as I have supposed had taken place, who among your Lordships can believe that the parties rising in that insurrection—prompted to it by the incitements of the British Government, and therefore exposed to the full displeasure of the Government of Naples—would have received from England either support, commiseration, or sympathy, or would not have been left to suffer the whole penalty attached to that crime into which they had been led by France and England?
  With respect, then, to the foreign policy of the noble Viscount I cannot say that I entertain any feeling which would justify me in granting him my confidence. I am still more doubtful with regard to his domestic policy, for strange to say, notwithstanding the

  2337
  long period during which both the noble Viscount and myself have been in public life, I am utterly at a loss to know upon all the leading questions of the day what is the policy of the noble Viscount. At all events, before he calls upon us for our support, let us ascertain the grounds upon which he demands our confidence. Shakspeare says that "one man in his time plays many parts;" but the noble Viscount is at the present moment playing half-a-dozen parts at the same time. He is not content with being the Janus Biceps, he is a Janus Septiceps—a political chameleon which offers a different hue and colour to the spectator according to the side from which he gazes. I defy any man, even the most ardent of his supporters, to say, when he professes confidence in the noble Viscount, what upon any great domestic question of the day is the policy to which he pledges himself. Some cries have been raised within the last few days which I think must astonish the noble Viscount when he reads them. One is "Palmerston and Freedom!" I imagine, my Lords, it would be more correct to shout, "Palmerston always, but never Freedom!" Then we hear "Palmerston and Liberalism!" "Palmerston and Protestantism!" "Palmerston, and down with Maynooth!" "Palmerston, the only Christian Premier!" "Palmerston, the true Protestant Minister!" and blasphemously, at least irreverently, "Palmerston, the man of God." The last cry appears in a clerical newspaper, where the noble Viscount is announced as "the man of God." Many of your Lordships will recollect a caricature of 1832, in which the late King William IV. was represented as staring at some large letters on a wall, forming the title of "Reform Bill." The words put into the mouth of His Majesty were, "Can that be meant for me?" Or your Lordships may, perhaps, remember a story of still older date, in which a little elderly lady, having been suddenly aroused from a long sleep, and finding her dress somewhat changed or disordered, is described as exclaiming, "Sure, this is none of I." I think the noble Viscount, when he sees the various cries with which his name is connected, must doubt his own identity, and say with the old gentlewoman in the anecdote, "Sure, this is none of I!" It is remarkable that, notwithstanding the number and variety of the war-cries which have been attached to the name of the noble Viscount, there are three with which I have never heard him associated, and yet they are both important
  2338
  in themselves and have been the watchwords in past times of the great Liberal party. I have never heard "Palmerston and Peace," "Palmerston and Retrenchment," "Palmerston and Reform." It is possible, even probable, that the noble Viscount, having supported the Reform Bill of 1832, may think that in the path of organic change and Parliamentary reform we have gone far enough; but "peace" and "retrenchment" are subjects not of temporary but of general application, and I am afraid their absence from the Government programme I may be accounted for by the circumstance that we can have no "retrenchment" without "pence," and "peace," with the noble Viscount in office, is impossible. I saw the other day in a newspaper, which warmly supports the noble Viscount and asserts his claims to the confidence of the country, a statement of the opinions to which every man professing to be a Liberal ought to adhere. "No man," to use the words of the newspaper in question, "deserving the name of Liberal, ought to wince while catechised upon each of these subjects:—the ballot, extension of the franchise, especially Locke King's Motion; the Bank monopoly, church rates, abolition of purchase in the army, and promotion by merit; a graduated income tax." The writer of the article objects, he says, upon principle to exacting pledges from candidates upon the hustings; but these are the A B C of Liberalism, and no man ought to hesitate for a single moment while being catechised upon them. I should like to see, for the amusement of the thing, the noble Viscount, as the head of a Liberal Government, going through his catechism upon these points. Take the ballot. There is not a man in England who has pronounced himself so strongly against the ballot as the noble Viscount. I need say nothing about Mr. Locke King's Motion, because we have had recent experience of his opinion on that point. The Government of the noble Viscount, have sent the subject of the Bank charter to a Select Committee, but with a very distinct intimation that the changes they contemplate, if any, are of the slightest and most trivial kind—certainly not amounting to an interference with what is called the "Bank monopoly." The noble Viscount has expressed himself quite as strongly with respect to church rates. I am not sure that he has pledged his Government upon the abolition of purchase in the army,

  2339
  while I should be surprised to hear it announced that a Government measure will be proposed in the new Parliament to accomplish that object. It is certain that the noble Viscount, as well as every important member of his Administration, has protested against the possibility of introducing anything like a differential—which I suppose is what is meant by a graduated—income-tax. I will not say that the Government may not contemplate the introduction of measures upon some of these questions, but I am quite sure that in the sense in which they are regarded by the newspaper to which I have referred—as tests of liberalism—one and all will meet with the determined opposition of the Government so far as they act upon their own views and principles. I may even venture to say that, should any one of these questions be brought forward in the new Parliament by some more ardent Liberal than is to be found on the Treasury benches, the noble Viscount, in order to defeat it, will not hesitate to seek the assistance of that very Conservative party which he now accuses of entering into an 'unprincipled combination' to upset his Government. Here it may be said "If that is your opinion, why do you withhold from Lord Palmerston as a Conservative that support which, upon your own showing, he cannot receive from any consistent, well-judging Liberal?" My answer is an easy one—because, in the first place, I do not know what the principles of the noble Viscount at this present moment are; because, in the next place, if they are such as I suppose them to be, then the noble Viscount is in a false position at the head of a Government professing liberalism, and a large number of whose supporters are avowedly of extreme radical opinions; and because, in the third and last place, I have not that confidence in the steadiness and firmness of the noble Viscount which would induce me to believe that in a moment of difficulty and pressure he would stand up in vindication and support of his own principles, whatever they may happen to be. I give him credit for many good qualities. Nobody can be insensible to the charms of his manner and conversation, and his perfect good-humour, and every one must admit the great adroitness with which he manages and steers his course in a popular assembly; but if I am asked whether I have that confidence in the noble Viscount which consists in a firm conviction that, under all circumstances,
  2340
  he will maintain and act upon certain fixed political principles—that from what he did yesterday one might foretell what he will do to-morrow—that he has those higher qualities which are essential to the character of a British Minister—I must reply in the negative. What has happened in the course of the present Session? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his financial statement we were told that it was absolutely necessary for the sake of revenue to raise the tea duty to 1s. 7d. Opposition was threatened. A right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) proposed that the duty should be fixed at 1s. 3d., and Lord John Russell suggested 1s. 4d. Well, my Lords, in the face of their own declaration made shortly before, that 1s. 7d. was absolutely necessary for revenue, the Government—I suppose it must be said, 'owing to a combination of parties'—reduced the duty to 1s. 5d. But there is yet a much stronger case in point. If there is any one thing upon which it is the bounden duty of the Prime Minister to preserve inviolate the prerogative of the Crown, it is that which concerns the advice that he shall give to Her Majesty as to the distribution of honours, irrespective of Parliamentary influence and Parliamentary support. I will not express any opinion on the merits of the particular case to which I am about to refer, but it is notorious to all men that, with the sanction of the noble Viscount, the noble Baron opposite (Lord Panmure) addressed to Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch a letter offering them pecuniary remuneration for their services, and indicating that as the amount and the form in which the Government thought their labours could most properly be requited; and the noble Viscount at the head of the Government said, that a pecuniary payment was the proper remuneration for the nature of those services. Well, the noble Viscount is asked in the House of Commons whether he intends to propose to the Crown to confer any mark of honour upon these gentlemen. He answers, "No;" that he does not deem their services such as would entitle them to a mark of honour, and that he does not think such advice ought to be tendered to the Sovereign. A motion is given notice of; it is brought forward; but before it is so brought forward the question is repeated to the noble Viscount. He repeats his answer that it is not consistent with his duty to offer that advice to the Crown. He, therefore, opposes

  2341
  the Motion; the debate goes on; he feels that there is a pressure of the House against him, and on the eve of a dissolution of Parliament, upon the pressure of the House of Commons, in a matter deeply touching the honours bestowed by the Crown, he consents to give the Sovereign that advice which, a few brief moments before, he had declared to the assembled Legislature that he felt it inconsistent with his duty to give. I say, then, "Can I have confidence in the Minister who so readily gives way before the slightest pressure?" and I will venture to say that, on that occasion also, had the matter gone to the division to which it was about to go, and in which undoubtedly he would have been defeated, we should have heard that a 'factious combination' and an 'unnatural coalition' had led to the overthrow of his Government; and this too from him who served the purpose of this 'coalition' by conceding the very point at issue, and conceding it in a manner incompatible with the dignity of the Crown and with his duty to his Sovereign.
  I know, my Lords, that I have grievously trespassed on the patient and kind indulgence of the House; but I shall not detain you for many minutes longer. If I am asked what course I think it desirable should be pursued in the next Parliament by those who do me the honour of consulting me, I should say that I hold it to be their bounden duty to adhere to their own principles and their own convictions, irrespective of the quarter from which any proposition may come. My Lords, if we find that the noble Viscount—avoiding and resisting all dangerous innovations and organic changes—maintains steadfastly the great institutions of the realm, and seeks only such reforms in our social system as may safely and properly combine the exertions of all true lovers of their country—in that case I take the liberty of assuring him most confidently that from the Conservative party he shall meet with no factious opposition—from them he need dread no 'unprincipled combination.' We shall be ready to support him in withstanding uncalled-for innovation—we shall be equally ready to co-operate with him, cordially, and without rivalry or jealousy, in introducing into and carrying through the Legislature those great social improvements in the achievement of which there is abundant room for the labours of Ministries and of Parliaments. My Lords, in everything which relates to the amendment
  2342
  and simplification of the law—in everything which relates to the revision of our penal system, to the better disposal of I our convicts, to a better provision for rescuing those who are on the verge of crime, to a better provision for assisting and stimulating the voluntary efforts of the country in promoting religious and moral education—in all which tends to the physical as well as the social and moral purification of that vast mass of contagion which is fermenting in our great towns and cities and throughout the length and breadth of the land—in all these the noble Viscount may depend upon it, if he will only enter upon so honourable a course, that he has a bright career of usefulness before him, in which he shall have no more cordial or more earnest coadjutors than the much-abused and vilified Conservative party. But if, yielding to external pressure and sacrificing his own convictions, he gives way to the wild cry for rash innovations and insidious encroachments upon the constitution, then, my Lords, I trust he will find that Conservative party still sufficiently numerous and sufficiently powerful to stay him in his downward course—to rescue him from himself and from his supporters—to preclude him from inflicting serious mischief upon his country, and from plunging it into anarchy and confusion. My Lords, I am satisfied that it is essential to the best interests of the nation that the Conservative party, whether in office or out of office, should be numerous and powerful. I say, without the slightest hesitation or concealment, I ardently wish—far more than I either hope or expect—that all those who were once banded together in support of the Conservative opinions to which I adhere, would show themselves again united in the same firm phalanx. But, my Lords, I say with as little hesitation or disguise, that for such a union to take place, or, indeed, any union worth the name, it must be founded upon a concurrence of principle and a concurrence of sentiment, and not founded on that which I believe every honest man would repudiate—namely, a base attempt to unite those who have no community of convictions for the purpose of overthrowing the existing Government and forming a disorganized and heterogeneous Government in its place. My notions may perhaps be somewhat old-fashioned and contrary to the enlightenment of the day, but they are the opinions to which I have steadfastly adhered through no inconsiderable period

  2343
  of my life, find I cannot now change them. Such as they have been such they will continue to be to the end of my career, whatever may be my political fortunes. I intend to maintain inviolate the great institutions of the country; I intend to support, as far as my feeble voice can go, the prerogatives of the Crown, the independence and the hereditary character of your Lordships' House and the rights of the people. I intend to support the doctrines and the rights of property of that Established Church of which I have always been an attached member; I desire to see her weak places strengthened and her defects repaired—I desire to see her taking a firmer hold on the affections of the people. But, for my part, I never will consent to see the withdrawal of one single stone from the venerated fabric of that Church which I regard with filial love and reverence. Pardon me, my Lords, for saying so much upon my own views and feelings. We who sit in this great assembly are not dependent upon the will of any constituency for re-election We express here our own individual and spontaneously-formed opinions. But there is not the less a moral responsibility resting upon each of us, and more especially upon those of our number who are honoured with the confidence of any portion of their fellow-countrymen, not to shrink at such a time as this from the frank and fearless avowal of their principles—not to veil themselves in studious mystery, but to declare clearly and manfully the course they are resolved to take under all circumstances and in all political eventualities. In the assertion of these opinions I may expose myself to obloquy, to calumny, and misrepresentation, as I have done before. These things I am able to meet, and I trust I know how to bear them. But no man can say of me during my life, nor, I hope, will any man be able to say, with truth to my memory, that I have ever shrunk from the avowal of my political opinions—that I have ever sunk a principle for the purpose of obtaining an advantage, or that I have ever betrayed the trust reposed in me by those friends who have honoured me with their political confidence.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down, and who has addressed the House with an eloquence not often equalled, stated upon two occasions last week that it was his intention to call your Lordships' attention to
  2344
  the circumstances in which the country was about to be placed with reference to its financial condition, and that he should avail himself of the opportunity afforded him by the second reading of the Income Tax Bill. It appeared to me that in giving that notice the noble Earl was taking a very natural and legitimate course. Considering this House as a medium through which he was certain to reach the ear of the country, and considering the nature of the addresses put forth by some of his own supporters, I thought that he was using most advantageously his high position to make such a statement in his place in your Lordships' House as might influence the elections, and which might, to a certain degree, afford a model and give a tone to the electioneering addresses which will shortly be made to the constituents of the country from the various hustings. The noble Earl has now made his statement, and he has made it with every advantage which his commanding ability and his consummate oratorical art afford him, and with the great advantage of having been able to select every topic, and to weigh every word of what he was to say so as to produce the greatest effect upon the country. In one portion of his address he has thought fit to make use of some personal illustrations with respect to Her Majesty's Ministers. The noble Earl has referred to myself and other Members of the Ministry as "ciphers" and "appendages" of my noble Friend at the head of the Government. Now, I do not, for my part, feel any mortification at the language employed by the noble Earl upon that point. But I must call the attention of your Lordships for a moment to the estimate which the noble Earl himself formed of some of those "appendages" at the period when he was engaged in his last attempt to form an Administration. I believe he wished upon that occasion to attach as an appendage to his Ministry one of my present colleagues; but he did so, no doubt, under the impression of the power given by a mere cipher when added to so important a unit as himself. [The Earl of DERBY: I should be glad to know to what person the noble Earl is now referring.] I am referring to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whose co-operation the noble Earl, as he himself stated in this House, would have been happy to obtain in his proposed Administration. But I do not wish to enter into any personal questions of this

  2345
  nature, for, with the exception of the noble Earl's remarks upon an education tax, the whole of his speech was so singularly apologetic and defensive that I think he is afraid that he will not receive that support which we shall receive from both town and country. But I must confess that the general tone of the noble Earl's speech was conceived in the spirit of a man who felt that he was on the losing side; and as I feel that I am on the winning side, I cannot pretend to any magnanimity whatever for abstaining from everything like party bitterness or personal invective in any observations which I may make with regard to the noble Earl or his Friends.
  The first point to which the noble Earl alluded was as might be expected on the second reading of the Income Tax Bill, the financial system of the Government. He regretted, in the first place that the Government had determined to deal with the income tax instead of referring it to the next House of Commons. I will not say one word as to what the country would have thought if Her Majesty's Government, after pledging themselves to give up the war tax, had availed themselves of the exact terms of the Income Tax Act and continued to levy the whole of the war tax; but I think that the country could have no desire whatever to be saddled with a war tax until the question could have been settled by the next Parliament. The noble Earl stated that for years he had been confidently hoping and expecting that the income tax would be repealed at the end of a certain period of years; but if he would just refresh his mind with what he said a few years ago on the subject of Mr. Gladstone's attempts at prospective legislation in connection with the succession duty, he will find that he then said—
  "It was said that the succession duties were to be imposed in order that the income tax might be taken off in the year 1860; but that either the noble Lord or himself would live to see the day when the income tax would be taken off was a thing which he did not expect."
  The noble Earl was at that time loth to say when he expected the income tax to be taken off. Whether he is right or wrong in his prophecy, he certainly had not always so much confidence and hope about the expiration of that tax in 1860. The noble Earl then adverted to several topics connected with our home policy, and towards the end of his speech he stated that we were going to the country without any
  2346
  intelligible principles on which they were to decide. Now, before I say one word upon that subject I must be allowed to ask your Lordships whether there is any peculiar fitness in the noble Earl making this charge against the present Government? The noble Earl, in a very eloquent peroration to his speech, dealt in the greatest possible generalities, and I do not think your Lordships are able to say what are the principles which actuate him. It may be said that an Opposition is not bound to explain to the country, as a Government is, the principles upon which it intends to act. But the noble Earl himself was once at the head of a Government—for a short time, no doubt; but, in order that that very short time might be prolonged, that Government delayed the dissolution of Parliament, although it was constantly pressed to adopt a more speedy course. The noble Earl said that Parliament is now about to be dissolved when there is no great principle to be contended for, and when the public mind is not agitated by any question of very great importance; but at the moment when he was importuned to dissolve Parliament the country was agitated by a most important question in which their interest were deeply concerned, and in the settlement of which one great political party was bound up. The noble Earl nevertheless sat calmly upon the Treasury bench, surrounded by his "appendages," and took every opportunity of showing the greatest temper and patience, and he exhibited marvellous dexterity in fencing from night to night the questions which we put, and which we thought we had a right to put, to him as to whether he was going to the country for protection or for free trade. I really think the noble Earl is not exactly the person to bring the accusation against Her Majesty's present Government of not having any definite principles.
  The noble Earl next alluded to the question of reform, and twitted Her Majesty's Government with having been found in the lobby with his own supporters on the occasion of Mr. Locke King's Motion for the extension of the county franchise. I admit that that was an unfortunate contingency; but I may be permitted to say a word in explanation with regard to the course pursued by the Government on that Motion. After due deliberation on the part of the Government as to the principles of Mr. Locke King's Bill, it was agreed that it should be supported, in order that when it

  2347
  went into Committee such modifications might be introduced as would prudently, judiciously, and most usefully extend the county suffrage. It was only subsequently to that decision, and when it was found that the Bill was not draughted in such a shape as to permit the introduction of any such Amendments, that it was finally decided, that it would only be wasting the time of the House to attempt to pass a Bill which Her Majesty's Government could not approve. But, my Lords, if the noble Earl wishes to put us in the same boat with him respecting electoral reform, and to commit us to the doctrine that our present electoral system is a final settlement—if he imagines that we think with him that our electoral system is perfectly unsusceptible of either renovation or improvement, I tell him that such is not our opinion. With regard to that and other questions of internal policy, Her Majesty's Government pledge themselves to progressive improvement.
  The noble Earl alluded to the question of education. Upon that subject Her Majesty's Government have very clear views. By the Bill brought in by my noble Friend sitting below me, and by that which was brought in by myself (and of which I may be allowed to say that I believe it was the most unexceptionable and would be the most useful settlement of the question that has yet been presented to Parliament), we have shown that we are by no means apathetic upon the question of education. But the debates which took place upon these Bills, and the fate of the various Resolutions submitted to the other House, have convinced us that it would be impossible for us to obtain for any measure we might propose, that general concurrence of opinion, without which it would be vain to expect it could be carried into successful operation. I believe it would be possible for Parliament to pass measures, which, though good in themselves, would nevertheless be productive of mischief from the very fact that they would meet with the decided disapproval of large classes throughout the country. This, I think, is a statesmanlike view of the matter. We therefore abstain from bringing in any Bills the only effect of which would be to make more difficult the settlement of the question. The noble Lord said that he was prepared to encourage education, but surely he ought to have gone a little further, and to have stated what system of education he is prepared to support. He ought to
  2348
  have informed us whether it is to the Education Bill which was first introduced into the House of Commons by his Colonial Secretary, for combining religious with secular education, or to the second Bill which that right hon. Gentleman introduced, and which provides for the separation of religious from secular education, that he gives his sanction. He ought to have told us whether he agrees or disagrees with his President of the Board of Trade, who laid his hands heavily upon that second Bill of his Colonial Secretary, and threw it into the dust.
  The noble Earl, in his desire to condemn the Government, has thought proper to refer to so small a matter as their conduct in reference to Sir J. M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch, and condemns the Government for the mode in which they have proposed to acknowledge their services on the Crimean Commission; and he expressed a hope that the great Conservative party will always be found supporting the existing Government and institutions. But I ask whether he regards as a very strong proof of that loyal spirit the attempt of one of his late colleagues to induce the House of Commons to interfere (and I altogether abstain from discussing the rights, merits, or demerits of Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch) with the undoubted prerogative of the Crown in the distribution of public honours? The noble Earl then passed in review the foreign relations of the country, and characterized the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government as meddling, dictation, and interference. Now, the only case he adduced which could in the slightest degree justify that accusation was that of Naples. Now, in the first place, one of the ablest, and certainly not the least experienced, Members of your Lordships' House—a Member of the Conservative party, and one to whose eloquence we are always delighted to listen—I mean the noble Lord sitting near the table (Lord Lyndhurst)—actually reproached us because we have not dictated, meddled, and interfered more with Naples. All the papers on Naples have been before the House for weeks. The noble Earl complains of their meagreness, and says that he has gone through forty-five pages, but cannot make anything of them. But when this charge about Naples is brought against the Government, how is it that during the six weeks in which this House has been passing its time in almost comparative idleness neither the noble Earl nor any

  2349
  one of his Friends has brought the question under discussion? How is it that the noble Earl has confined himself to the statement of a few observations introduced into what I will call the electioneering address which he has delivered this evening? If he had brought forward a Motion on the subject, I have no doubt that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would have been able most satisfactorily to show that we have not gone one step beyond what we had a right to do, and that the steps we took in conjunction with the Emperor of the French were taken from a regard to the state of Italy generally, and not merely on account of the internal affairs of Naples. And, my Lords, to show how completely that interference has met the approval of other States, I may mention that there is not a single Power in Europe, whatever its political leanings, and however averse it may be to the principle of interference with other nations, that has not followed up the views adopted by France and England on that question, and addressed remonstrances to the King of Naples against the policy which he is pursuing. With regard to the West of Europe the noble Earl was perfectly silent. I will not repeat what has been said even this Session by some of those who follow the leadership of the noble Earl as to our relations with the Court of France being less secure than they were, and likely to be endangered. If I did, I could tell the noble Earl that the relations between the two Courts were never on a firmer or securer basis than at the present moment; and I might mention that the very last communication which the Emperor of the French made to our Ambassador at Paris was to express his great satisfaction that in China his own troops would be found once more co-operating with the troops of Her Majesty. With regard to Austria, while I confess that we have no right to claim any particular merit to ourselves for the friendly character of our relations with that Power, yet I may refer to it as an agreeable consideration that at the very time our relations with her have been strengthening and improving, the Emperor of Austria has been giving encouragement to a more liberal system of government in his Italian dominions. The noble Earl said nothing of Russia, and I imagine I may take it for granted that both sides of the House are perfectly satisfied with the final arrangement we have made with that great Power;
  2350
  for not one single word has been said against the peace by which we succeeded, without the humiliation of Russia, in gaining all the objects for which we contended in the late war. I do not know whether your Lordships bear in mind that the noble Earl, who can make everything he wishes to be clear so very clear to those who listen to him, was exceedingly vague and general, and even obscure, in his expressions as to the Persian war. I partly attribute that to the fact that the noble Earl must have remembered a despatch written by the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Malmesbury), in which the principle involved in the war was very broadly sanctioned. But perhaps there were some other considerations that led him to avoid the use of any stronger expression than that of calling the Persian war an unfortunate war. In another place—and I am sure I have no wish to point out disagreements between the noble Earl and his "appendages"—the Gentleman who there represents the noble Earl denounced the war in the strongest terms, and described it as a war waged on the most contemptible and shameful grounds. He said its only cause was to be found in the "turbulent and aggressive diplomacy" of the Government; and we must not forget that if not the Ministers, at least some of their adherents, have been charged with raising a cry framed on the false notion that the war was connected with Russia. My Lords, on the very last occasion on which we met, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough), with that manly and straightforward honesty of purpose which characterises all his proceedings, declared that the war was a just and necessary war—that even if the treaty engagements did not exist that had been given by the Shah of Persia, we were bound to take measures to prevent Herat falling into the hands of the Shah; and he added that it would be uncandid not to state to your Lordships that the war was connected with the Russian question, and that he believed the treaty agreed to with Ferukh Khan was a mere supplement to the Treaty of Paris at the conclusion of the Russian war. I am, however, in the dark as to what the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) thinks upon this question. I have no idea to which of these opinions he inclines, or how he reconciles the irreconcilable views of the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) and of his representative in another place. My Lords, I believe that by the firm and judicious conduct of the noble Lord at the

  2351
  head of the Government, aided by my noble Friend near me (the Secretary for Foreign Affairs), and by the conclusion of the two treaties with Russia and Persia, we have removed two of the questions with Russia on which the people of this country are the most susceptible, and have put ourselves in a position entirely to renew those friendly relations with that great Power which are not the least inconsistent with watchful vigilance over your own interests; which is, indeed, the normal state of things, and which, when no circumstances exist to render it impossible, should be the course pursued by us, not merely from a regard to the interests of our own country, but by those of all the nations of the earth.
  My Lords, I now come to the China question: but I will follow the example of the noble Earl by not re-opening the debate on that subject. The noble Earl is, of course, satisfied with what has been done in another place on this subject. I can only say that if the noble Earl is satisfied, so am I. I am perfectly satisfied with the verdict of this House, expressed by a majority more than double the adverse majority in another place, and I shall be perfectly satisfied to leave it to the country to determine which House was right and which House was wrong in the matter. I will not follow the noble Earl into the China debate. We have never pretended that when papers are laid on the table no opinion is to be expressed upon them; but when such opinions are given, and when in one Mouse such a conclusion is arrived at as we do not think justified by the circumstances, we feel ourselves bound to appeal to the country for its decision. The noble Earl talked of the entire absence of anything like a factious opposition in either House upon this question; but I think there was some difference in his conduct with regard to the proceedings in the two branches of the Legislature. Your Lordships will remember how solemnly he adjured your Lordships to judge rightly and truly on this question; how he besought you to consider it on the two grounds of religion and humanity, and to adopt a perfectly judicial mind in arriving at your decision. But unless rumour is wrong in the statements which have been so widely circulated—and till they are contradicted I must give them credence—the course taken by the noble Earl with reference to the other House was a very different one. He called upon his supporters, many of
  2352
  whom held views contrary to those of the majority in that House, to vote according to party ties, and not follow their personal convictions. The noble Earl has very naturally alluded to a subject much canvassed at the present moment—viz. the alleged coalition between himself and others with whom he has not hitherto acted in politics, and he quoted a strong speech of the late Sir Robert Peel in favour of coalitions, or at least the conjunction of members of different parties under certain conditions. All this doctrine, however, is very much contrary to the declaration of his representative in the other House of Parliament, who I remember quoted with great effect the words "England does not love coalitions." Upon this subject I am also reminded of a remarkable passage in a letter of the noble Earl himself, inserted in a lately-published volume of the Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel, in which the noble Earl gives most excellent reasons why nothing is so dangerous to the characters of public men as to suppose that when political parties coalesce such a coalition can, in the slightest degree, be a steppingstone to power. But the noble Earl has in his place stated that there is no coalition, no combination, no concert, and no something else, which I have forgotten, existing on this question. Now, when any noble Lord in this House gives an assurance—and, still more, the noble Lord at the head of the Conservative party—that there is no foundation for a statement that has been made, I would not for one instant venture to doubt the perfect accuracy of that assurance; but when the noble Earl challenges us to state whether we do or do not believe in the fact of a combination having existed on the occasion to which I am now referring, I am led to state one or two circumstances that would have justified a person in thinking there was something of the sort till the noble Earl denied the fact. I will ask your Lordships to consider whether it was unlikely that the noble Earl would desire to establish such a combination with any of his late opponents. In the year 1851, when he had been empowered to construct a Government, he very frankly stated that, although his party comprised men of great ability, their want of official experience prevented them from accepting the highest offices in the State. In the following year, however, the noble Earl formed an Administration with these noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen. If I might use a quotation from the Latin

  2353
  Grammar I would say, "De mortuis nil nisi bonum." I do not wish to say one word disrespectful of the noble Earl's Government; but during their tenure of office they failed to gain the confidence of two successive Parliaments. Again, in the year 1855, an opportunity was afforded to the noble Earl of forming a Government, but upon that occasion also he declined the task; and in stating the reasons which induced him to do so, he informed your Lordships that although he had obtained the distinguished co-operation of the noble Earl above him (the Earl of Ellenborouoh), and of a literary Baronet in the other House (Sir E. Bulwer Lytton), he had been unable to secure to himself the aid of Lord Palmerston—that very Lord Palmerston in whom he now declares he can place no confidence whatever in consequence of the course he pursued in the years 1848 and 1850. Nevertheless, the noble Earl in 1855 thought that the only possibility of his conducting the Government rested on the possibility of his obtaining the assistance of Lord Palmerston, not in a subordinate position, but as leader of the Commons of England; and not only that, but, as I am reminded by my noble Friend near me, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, to "meddle," "dictate," and "interfere" as much as he liked with foreign Powers.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the statement was quite unfounded. The position of Foreign Secretary was never offered by him, and never would have been offered to the noble Lord.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am quite satisfied with the noble Earl's explanation; for it appears that he had only that sort of semi-confidence in the noble Lord which was sufficient to induce him to place in his hands all the power he might possess as leader of the House of Commons. That was the offer then made, and I am not aware that the party of the noble Earl has received any great accession either of strength or talent since that day, and therefore I think it is most natural that the noble Earl should wish to obtain the aid of men of high character and eloquence, such as Mr. Gladstone. So far from such a course being objectionable, I think it would be a great advantage to the country if the noble Earl could so far strengthen his party that they might feel that when in opposition there was a great responsibility weighing on them for their words and actions, inasmuch as they might
  2354
  be called upon to give effect to them when by their votes they might render a change in the Government expedient or inevitable. I believe I need hardly remind your Lordships that in the very first week of the Session the leader of the Opposition and Mr. Gladstone were found in most friendly co-operation, though Mr. Gladstone said he could not help it if the Conservatives came to him and adopted his financial plans, and that he could not refuse their support; and it is perhaps almost equally unnecessary for me to remind you that this monstrous calumny, as it is now regarded, of a coalition or combination between the Peelites and the Conservative party was not confined to the liberal or radical journals. The article which appeared in The Press created some sensation. The noble Earl shakes his head as if he had no knowledge of that journal. [The Earl of DERBY said he had no connection with The Press.] I acquit the noble Earl of any connection with The Press; but The Press, whether rightly or wrongly, does owe its circulation principally to the circumstance that it is supposed to be the organ of the party opposite, and to receive very important and semi-official communications from them Well, in The Press there appeared a short time since what purported to be a report of a speech made by the noble Earl opposite. The report was to the following effect:—
  "Lord Derby said that he had heard it stated that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Norfolk originated in a feeling of disapprobation at the report which had been circulated of the coalition between the party which the noble Lord was proud to lead and the Member for the University of Oxford. That report was totally false. He had never seen Mr. Gladstone upon the subject, nor had ever held the slightest communication with him upon it."
  Then the noble Earl is represented to have made a declaration in the most dignified and emphatic manner as to dictation from Members of his party to himself. The Press then adds:—
  "The noble Lord said that no one could be more opposed to coalitions effected in defiance of political principle than himself, but that when Members from identity of sentiment were frequently drawn together to the same lobby it was impossible to doubt that a bond of political union was established which no party could refuse to acknowledge. We must not omit to state that Lord Derby expressed high admiration of the talents and character of Mr. Gladstone. He noticed emphatically the fact that the Conservative party was at present in a minority in the House of Commons, and insisted that nothing

  2355
  could possibly be more unwise than to decline such accessions of strength as would place it in a position to undertake the Government of the country."
  On the following Monday after the appearance of that account in print the noble Earl came down to the House and made a statement which some persons thought unusual. I, however, thought it natural enough, for I do not see, if anything is to be done in the way of clearing up a false statement, why a Peer should lose the advantage which his position in that House gives him to explain his conduct to Parliament and the country at large. The noble Earl then said:—
  "It is not my custom to notice any misstatement or representation that appears in the public papers with regard to my public character, and without departing in the slightest degree from that rule on the present occasion I may be allowed in justice not only to myself but to others to refer to a report, wholly unauthorized, of a meeting which is said to have taken place on Friday last at my house, which did take place, but not at my house, and the statement of the proceedings at which, although, undoubtedly, it bears on the face of it evidence of having been furnished by some person who was either present or had heard what passed, is in many cases grossly inaccurate, with regard to which I am represented not only as saying what I did not say, but as saying exactly the reverse of what I did say."—[See p. 1586.]
  Well, though I defended the practice of Peers contradicting misstatements which they thought injurious to them, there is no doubt that it sometimes leads to inconveniences, because when once contradictions are begun it is difficult to know where these will end. The Press, acknowledging that it was in error in stating that the meeting took place at Lord Derby's house, pointed out that the only other inaccuracy was the statement that the noble Earl said he had had no communications with Mr. Gladstone, whereas what he said was that he had no compact or understanding with Mr. Gladstone, though there had been political conversations between them. Now, the public does not enter very nicely into the distinctions involved in a subject of this character, and we ought not, perhaps, to feel surprise that, as they had not heard the statement made this evening by the noble Earl, they readily concluded that some political combination must have been effected between him and the right hon. Gentleman. There was another rumour afloat, which, if well founded, would naturally tend to confirm that conclusion. According to that rumour, the noble Earl was found with Mr. Gladstone in a room
  2356
  adjoining the House of Commons; and, under all these circumstances, it is not surprising that there should arise a confused notion that, although there might be no coalition or combination between the noble Earl and the right hon. Gentleman, there must have been something which I cannot undertake to describe, particularly when they see that the interview is followed by a decided vote, which puts the Government in a decided minority.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Does the noble Earl advert to some conversation in a room in the House of Commons?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I said there were rumours of that kind, to which I attached no importance whatever.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: There is not the slightest foundation for them.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Will the noble Earl say something about the conversations referred to in The Press? The noble Earl has contradicted one part of the statement and not the other, and leaves people to guess whether that which remains uncontradicted is true or not. With regard to combinations, there might be combination which upon occasions might be honourable to all parties concerned and useful in their tendency; and I must take this opportunity of saying, with respect to a large portion of Members who voted recently against the Government in the other House (not referring now to Conservative Members, who had a perfect right to vote on any party question against the Government, but to some of the most distinguished Members who adorn the House of Commons) that we—and I now speak not only for myself, but for my colleagues and the noble Lord at the head of the Government,—entirely repudiate the notion that the great portion were actuated by other than the highest and most conscientious motives. We think, and the country, I believe, also think, that they misjudged the question; but we should regret that honourable men, who gave a disinterested support to the Government during the war and subsequently, should be visited with penalties too heavy for a single vote. But if there are coalitions which are honourable to the parties and conducive to the interests of the country, there are some coalitions which it is utterly impossible to justify; and to a combination of the latter class I beg leave to direct your Lordships' attention for a few moments. I am about to refer to a matter which may be subject of contradiction. I know nothing about it myself;

  2357
  but I find it in a Conservative paper—though after what has occurred we must not attach too much value to that authority. The Dublin Evening Mail, a high Tory paper, says:—
  "There is now no doubt of the return of the O'Donoghue, owing to the exertions of the Conservatives in his behalf; 240 of the Earl of Glengall's tenants polled for him to a man to-day here, and all of Lord Donoughmore's. He has had also the support of Lord Hawarden."
  I wish some Conservative Peer would say that this report is not true. The O'Donoghue,—he may be a respectable man, but he is a stranger to the county, and his recommendation is that he is a strong member of the Young Ireland party; he entertains extreme Catholic notions, and advocates tenant right to the fullest extension of the term. Now, I think such a coalition must be more dangerous to the Conservative party than Mr. Gladstone's adhesion in opposition to the Government. The noble Earl boasted of his attachment to the Church of England; but I do not think the noble Earl has taken a course lately the most likely to benefit that Church. Your Lordships will recollect the noble Earl's admonition to the whole episcopal bench to vote as he was about to vote on the Chinese question, but given in a way which must have been offensive to men who felt bound to give a conscientious vote on the other side of the question. On a subsequent occasion, the noble Earl thought proper to compliment the Bishops of Exeter and Oxford, and passed a sweeping condemnation, mixed with sarcasm, on the other Prelates who were absent from the House. Both the attack and the occasion of this attack were very unfair to those right rev. Prelates. These, however, appear to be matters of minor importance to the great Conservative leader, who has, moreover, thought it right to bring into the discussion the discretion of Her Majesty's advisers in recommending Her Majesty to make certain episcopal appointments. On principle I must decline to enter into that question. The noble Earl has himself said that these Prelates are, personally, singularly fit for the episcopal bench; but he made use of the word "latitudinarianism" in such a manner as to make a most unfair insinuation against my noble Friend at the head of the Government. While I refuse to go into a justification of these appointments, I must declare my conviction that my noble Friend has been actuated by a desire to do that
  2358
  which is best for the Church and agreeable to the great body of churchmen, and that he has been particularly anxious in making these appointments to secure harmony in the respective districts for which these Prelates and others have been selected.
  Passing, however, from this subject, I wish next to make a few remarks upon the somewhat personal attack the noble Earl has made upon my noble Friend now at the head of the Government. I think the best answer which can be given to that attack is the statement which I have already made—namely, that in 1855 the noble Earl expressed his readiness to appoint my noble Friend to one of the most important posts which he could be called upon to occupy in the service of the Crown. As, however, I have determined to be as little personal as possible in the course of this discussion, I shall not enter into the reasons which have led to the result that the noble Earl has been beaten in the race of political contention by my noble Friend, as is clearly shown by the estimation in which the conduct of my noble Friend is now regarded by the country. It is, indeed, easy to perceive why the policy of the noble Viscount is looked upon with favour out of doors, and why the desire of the nation to retain him as the head of the Government has been so unequivocally proclaimed. I have heard it remarked that those Sovereigns who have been most fortunate in the government of their dominions have been those whose faults and virtues have been in unison with the people whom they governed; and that this was the more rare inasmuch as that their position inculcated qualities the very reverse of those of their peoples. Now with regard to my noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) the latter difficulty does not exist, for I do believe that his opinions and his feelings are singularly in unison with the feelings and the opinions of the great majority of his fellow countrymen. They know that he has long been a faithful servant of the Crown, and that when acting with my noble Friend below me (the Earl of Aberdeen) he never for one moment departed from that manly and straightforward course of conduct by which he has always been eminently characterized. The people of England are also aware of the position in which the noble Viscount was placed when he undertook the formation of the present Government. The country was at the time in a very critical situation. For a period of three weeks we were without any efficient Government

  2359
  whatever. Her Majesty, following up that constitutional maxim to which She has always adhered, called to her councils the several leaders of political parties who appeared to have any chance of being able to form an Administration which would be likely to meet with anything like general support. It was only after the muster of such men had been exhausted that Her Majesty invited my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) to accept the reins of office. He did accept them at an age when most other men would rather have been inclined to seek for the ease and repose which cannot be found in the responsible position which he occupies. Having taken upon himself the task of conducting the affairs of the country, we cannot but admire the industry which the noble Lord has displayed in the discharge of his Parliamentary duties, as well as the spirit and the vigour with which he prosecuted a just war, as well as the energy which he displayed in insisting that the treaty of peace which was signed in Paris should be fully and faithfully carried into effect. The country has seen the noble Lord supported during the war with Russia; but at the close of that great contest they now see different parties in the Legislature combining for the purpose of opposing the Government of the noble Lord, without effecting any improvement in their own position. The people of England looking upon these things are of opinion that there is something not quite English in the proceedings to which I allude. The noble Earl opposite complains that my noble Friend under these circumstances has resolved upon a dissolution of Parliament. I cannot help remarking that it is a somewhat striking fact that the leader of the noble Earl's party in the House of Commons should have come to an entirely different conclusion, when the announcement of a dissolution was first made to Parliament. It is not, however, perhaps to be wondered at that the noble Earl, after due reflection, and after having taken into consideration the various ways in which the opinions of the country have since been expressed, should now be disposed to regard a dissolution with but a small degree of favour. For my part, I am more than ever inclined to think that to dissolve Parliament was the best course for the Government to adopt; and I may be allowed, while speaking upon the point, to quote a passage from a communication of the Duke of Wellington to Sir Robert Peel upon the subject of a dissolution. It was
  2360
  written upon the occasion of a division adverse to the Administration of Sir Robert Peel having taken place, and in it the Duke of Wellington states:—
  "I confess that I have no feeling upon the point on which the Parliament should be dissolved. The Queen's servants will be placed in the situation of advising Her Majesty to dissolve the Parliament because, on account of the combinations against them in the House of Commons, they are no longer able to carry on the Queen's service. The question for the country is not the particular question on which the vote has been taken, but in reality whether you are to continue the Minister and to be supported as the Minister, or the Queen is to look for other servants? In this view of the case I put out of the question all cries and nicknames, and the effect of them, however much they may be used at the elections. The question at the elections will be the support of your Administration."
  Now, it is a matter of perfect indifference to me whether the noble Earl opposite attributes this dissolution to the China question, or regards it as an appeal to the country to sanction the general policy of the Government. Upon the former question the course which we have adopted has received the sanction, not only of every merchant, but of every Christian mission, and is approved of, I believe, by the people at large. It is, therefore, a matter of indifference to us whether we appeal to the country with that cry, or upon the faith of our general foreign policy. We care not, moreover, whether we be judged by our principles of domestic legislation or whether, as the Duke of Wellington put it, we ask the people of England to support the present Administration, as, upon all these grounds, the Government most deserving of their confidence. The result of our appeal to the country will, we feel assured, be the triumph of my noble Friend, and although by a coalition, such as that which, it is said, took place at the late election for Tipperary, you may diminish by one or two Members the followers of the Government, yet we entertain no doubt that a majority sufficiently large to carry out those measures which it will be our duty to propose to Parliament for the improvement of the existing institutions of this great empire will be returned to the House of Commons.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I should not have risen to address your Lordships at all upon this occasion, were it not that my noble Friend who has just sat down has thought proper to pursue a course which, as the leader of this House, I must say I did not expect he would have

  2361
  adopted. It is to one occupying the position of my noble Friend that we naturally look to give that tone to our debates which should be in conformity with the dignity of this assembly, and I always remember with gratitude the course pursued by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) as long as he led this House. But I have heard with regret the speech of my noble Friend as departing from the spirit by which our discussions ought at all times to be characterized. I do not think it worthy of my noble Friend that he should—just after a Peer, and an eminent Peer, has, in a most solemn manner, declared in his place that certain accusations and assertions were unfounded—that a noble Earl, who holds so high a place as that of leader of your Lordships' House, should come forward and afford so churlish a belief—if I can designate his language as implying belief at all—to a statement thus made.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I give the most entire credence to the statement of the noble Earl as far as it goes.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I may perhaps be permitted to state that I made the declaration in question, not alone upon my own part, but upon the part of all those with whom I am politically connected. I am perfectly certain that not one of them entered into any combination or understanding with any party not concurring with them upon the whole in political opinion.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My noble Friend has alluded to the Members of his party, and he must forgive me if I endeavour to strengthen his statement—if to be strengthened, indeed, it requires—by the assurance that, so far as I am concerned—and I may speak for those who sit behind me—I never gave a vote in this House more thoroughly conscientious than that which I gave upon the question of our relations with China. When questions of doubtful merit arise, we all of us, perhaps, have a certain party bias upon which we act; but with respect to this question, I for one never entertained the slightest doubt, and if my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Derby) had given his vote in favour of the policy adopted with regard to it by Her Majesty's Government, I, as a Peer and a gentlemen, must say that I should still have voted as I did. I may also state that we have never entered into any negotiations, either directly or indirectly,
  2362
  which could be construed into a charge such as that which was made in the other House of Parliament by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, and which was repeated by the noble Earl opposite. I cannot help once more alluding to the conduct of my noble Friend. I would not be so presumptuous as to give advice as to the conduct of your Lordships' debates; but we look to the noble Earl, as the leader of this House, to show us an example in conducting our debates: and I ask, is it dignified or usual to allude to a supposition of some noble Lords having met in the tea-room with certain hon. Gentlemen, Members of the other House of Parliament, with the view of conspiring against Her Majesty's Government? No such meeting ever took place, and I must say that that statement of my noble Friend, as well as his having read a whole column from a newspaper in support of a certain charge, when he was told across the table that my noble Friend near me knew no more about the paper in question than the noble Earl opposite himself, is extremely unbecoming, and is an example of which certainly we had no instance under the leadership of the noble Marquess whom I see sitting on the Ministerial benches (the Marquess of Lansdowne). I trust, however, that that example will not be imitated, and that this is the last time I shall ever hear in this House a doubt thrown upon any statement which one of your Lordships in reference to his own conduct may feel called upon to make. But the noble Earl opposite was not satisfied with referring to meetings in tea-rooms; he also alluded to the election of a Gentleman named O'Donoghue, and thought proper to criticise the manner in which that election had been conducted. Now, I do not know who supported that Gentleman, except so far as I have learned the names from having had them read to us from a newspaper by the noble Earl, and one of those names did strike me—I allude to that of Lord Donoughmore. My noble Friend seems astonished that he should have supported the Gentleman to whom he has referred; but it appears that Mr. O'Donoghue stood for Tipperary upon tenant-right principles, and if that were the case, nothing could be more consistent upon the part of Lord Donoughmore than to give him his support, inasmuch as that noble Earl himself has always been an advocate of tenant-right measures in this

  2363
  House. Why is it, therefore, that he is brought before your Lordships, and held up to ridicule and contempt for an adherence to principles which he has always professed? What has the Tipperary election, I should like to know, to do with the accusation put forward by the noble Earl of a combination having been entered into on the question of the war with China? The noble Earl seems to be very sanguine as to the results of that war, and I may say, that as it has proceeded thus far, the Government are bound with all due vigour and energy to support the honour of England; but nothing will induce me to believe that a sensible man in the position of Sir John Bowring might not have prevented altogether the evils to which that war must give rise. There were two moments at which a resort to hostilities might have been avoided. I shall not, however, enter into those matters; but I must remind the noble Lord, who seems so sanguine as to the result of a war with China, that the present is not like the last war in which we were engaged with that country.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I did not say I was sanguine as to the result of the war with China. I spoke in sanguine terms as to the result of the elections.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Well, I am sorry the noble Earl is not sanguine as to the result of the war—[Earl GRANVILLE: I did not say so]—although I should have thought that the same temperament which led him to be sanguine in the one case would have led him to be sanguine in the other. I was, however, proceeding to remark that the present is entirely a different war from that in which we were last engaged with the Chinese, inasmuch as the former contest was one entered into against the Government of that country, while the present is of a national character. At the close of the last war, too, £6,000,000 were paid upon the part of the Chinese Government to England; but we must recollect that China has but lately undergone all the horrors of a protracted civil war, and that her resources have as a consequence been greatly impoverished. Whatever, therefore, may be the feelings of the noble Earl opposite upon the subject, I feel assured that the anticipations of the public at large, in reference to our contest with China, cannot be very sanguine.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl has taken me to task for not, in his opinion,
  2364
  giving what he considers a sufficiently cordial assent to the statement of the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Derby), and now he is adopting that very course which he has attributed to me with regard to myself. I have expressed no opinion whatever, bad or good, with regard to the result of the Chinese war.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I was not aware that I was contradicting the statement of the noble Earl. I intended only to state my own opinion, and to give my reasons for thinking why the present war was more dangerous than the last, and I assure the noble Earl that I had no intention of contradicting him. I will now only repeat my denial of any coalition having been formed with the view of upsetting the Government, and I will add, on behalf of the party with whom I have the honour of acting, that we never gave a more straightforward vote in our lives, and with less reference to political consequences, than we did on the Chinese question.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I shall make no comment upon the circumstance that I have been included by the noble Earl opposite among the number of those noble Lords who constitute what he is pleased to characterize as mere appendages of the leader of the Opposition in this House; but I do beg leave to say that I have never been anything in this House or elsewhere but a man who, entertaining opinions of his own, has never changed those opinions, and who, if he should change them, will honestly and openly give the reasons by which that change has been brought about. When I give my support, therefore, to the noble Earl near me, as my leader in this House, that support is given honestly, but at the same time with that earnestness and affection towards him personally, which I think ought to exist. I am indeed astonished that my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville), who by nature is one of the most courteous and most amiable Members of this House, should have got up in his place, and after a distinct statement had been made by my noble Friend near me, upon his honour as a Peer and a gentleman, should have cast an indirect insinuation upon the correctness of that statement. Now, if my noble Friend opposite, or any Peer sitting upon his side of the House, had made a similar statement, I, for one, should have implicitly believed him, and should never obliquely cast in his

  2365
  teeth the insinuation that I still considered he had not uttered that which was exactly the truth. If I had done otherwise I should hold myself disgraced as a Member of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl opposite, indeed, says, that he believes the statement made by my noble Friend near me; but then he quoted passages from newspapers, and referred to something which occurred here and there, and circumstances which took place at an election in Ireland, in a manner not quite consistent with the avowal of his belief, and in a way which I think was extremely contemptible. [A laugh.] You may laugh, but I do hold it as a contemptible course to pursue, and as a not very honourable mode of dealing with a noble Peer, when you know full well that there is no other way of redressing a grievance but by fair argument.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I must say that I do not think any observation which fell from me was much more jocular or more reprehensible than those remarks about "Reform Bill," or the little woman who did something I could not catch what, which fell from the noble Earl opposite. I wish it, however, to be clearly understood that I guarded myself from the beginning against being supposed not to give implicit belief to the statement of the noble Earl, and if I referred to documents which might seem to imply that I still entertained some doubt upon the subject, I did so simply with the view of showing that the supposed combination of parties was owing to certain circumstances which justified the public in thinking that such a coalition had actually taken place. I do not think, therefore, that the noble Earl who has just sat down was entitled to use such a word as "contemptible" in reference to what fell from me.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.