Lords Sitting of 1 June 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Sale of Poisons, &c.
2a Metropolitan Board of Works (Victoria Park Approach); Liverpool Improvement.
3a Chelsea Hospital (Purchase of Lands); Franchise Prisons.

THE GOVERNOR GENERAL OF INDIA.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that in the debate on the Oude Proclamation the noble Earl at the head of the Government expressed himself with regard to Lord Canning in terms of considerable respect and courtesy. Their Lordships would probably also have seen, through the ordinary channels of information, that towards the end of a protracted debate "in another place" the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, amid the cheers of both sides of the House, that Her Majesty's Government had sent a telegraphic message to Lord Canning, subsequent to the resignation of the noble Earl the late President of the Board of Control, intimating to him that he would receive the support of Her Majesty's Government. He (Earl Granville) might complain that language was held in the course of that debate by Members of the Government, which tended to give the public the notion that Lord Canning was not likely to receive much support from Her Majesty's Government. He might also complain of the language held in a certain postprandial speech, but as that would be referred to in the course of the evening he would not anticipate the con-
1268
versation. He congratulated the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) on the great ability and the high character of his son, which had enabled the noble Earl to place him in a position of great difficulty and responsibility; and he (Earl Granville) was convinced that if the promise of support to which he had referred had been given to Lord Canning, that promise would be faithfully and honourably fulfilled. He was sure that a public declaration from the noble Earl opposite, that such a promise had been given to Lord Canning, would be regarded as of the greatest importance in India, since the censure contained in the secret despatch of the noble Earl the late President of the Board of Control had been made public. He would therefore venture to ask the noble Earl, whether there was any objection to the production of a copy of the communication to which allusion had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other House; also, if there was any objection to produce a copy of the Vote of Confidence of the Court of Directors in Lord Canning; and whether the noble Earl would likewise lay on the table a copy of the despatch covering that Vote of Confidence?
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he hoped that on all occasions he had spoken of Lord Canning with that respect and personal regard which was due to his eminent talents and abilities. With regard to the support which had been recently tendered to that noble Lord, it was not for the first time tendered. If the noble Earl (Earl Granville) would refer to the despatch that was sent out by his (the Earl of Derby's) noble Friend the late President of the Board of Control, of the 24th of March, he would find that it distinctly laid down the policy which Her Majesty's Government hoped to pursue, and an assurance that Lord Canning would receive the support of the Government in carrying out that policy. The Proclamation issued by Lord Canning was not, as their Lordships were aware, approved by the Government, inasmuch as it appeared contrary to that policy which Lord Canning had previously pursued; and the despatch in which his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) communicated the opinions of the Government in regard to that Proclamation had, as he (the Earl of Derby) thought, unfortunately come before the public eye. The only communication which had taken place of the nature to which the noble Earl had referred, in which the Government promised their support to Lord Canning, was contained in

1269
a telegraphic message transmitted by him (the Earl of Derby) as a personal communication to Lord Canning, with whom he had no right to enter into any official correspondence whatever; it was sent with the view to its overtaking the mail which had gone out on the 10th. And he communicated on the 12th by telegraph with Lord Canning, informing him of the change that had taken place in the Government by the retirement of his noble Friend the late President of the Board of Control, and of the regret of the Government that the secret despatch which his noble Friend had addressed to him had been made public, and expressing the determination of the Government to give him the most cordial support in their power. It also expressed the hope of the Government that, while they approved the policy laid down in the Secret Despatch of the 19th of April, Lord Canning would not in practice find it greatly to differ from the policy recommended by his (the Earl of Derby's) noble Friend in the former despatch. Of course, those telegraphic communications must necessarily be very short; but, under the circumstances, he had no hesitation in promising the most cordial support to Lord Canning. It would not be proper to produce the private communication to Lord Canning to which the noble Earl had alluded; but with regard to the vote of confidence of the Court of Directors in Lord Canning there would not be the least objection to lay that on the table. In cases of that kind, there was, he believed, no covering despatch.

PATRONAGE OF THE SEE OF DURHAM.

  QUESTION.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHdesired to put some questions for the sole purpose of obtaining information upon a subject which had excited considerable interest within the See of Durham. It was understood that there was contemplated a redistribution of the patronage attaching to the See of Durham, and to hand over a portion of it to augment the patronage of the Sees of Ripon and Manchester. He wished to know whether any such scheme was in contemplation; if so, to what extent was there to be a transfer of patronage, when and how that change was to be effected, and whether any opportunity would be given to the House to express an opinion upon the policy of such proceeding.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERwas understood to say that a scheme of the nature
  1270
  mentioned by the noble Lord was under the consideration of the Ecclesiastical Commission, but not yet decided upon. Under an Act of the 6 & 7 Will. IV. power was given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to exchange ecclesiastical patronage according to the relative importance and magnitude of the sees. He could not say when that measure would be decided upon, but he thought the subject was one that required a speedy determination. He did not see how any opportunity could be afforded to Parliament to discuss the subject, except by the introduction of a Bill to repeal the existing law.

  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S SPEECH AT SLOUGH.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I last night gave notice that I should call your Lordships' attention to a speech recently delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Slough. I need hardly say I should not have thought it necessary to do so if the right hon. Gentleman had confined himself to expressing his own opinions, or had merely sought to amuse his constituents during a holiday week by graphic descriptions of scenes in Parliament. But the case is different when a Gentleman, holding the high position of Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House of Commons, takes what he calls the first opportunity that any Minister of the Crown has had of addressing a large body of his fellow-countrymen since the formation of the present Government; and I say, the words which fall from him on such an occasion are important, and the statements he makes are supposed to be derived from official information, and go forth to the world as facts. We are then entitled to ask of the colleagues of that right hon. Gentleman whether they take the same view as he does, and also for some elucidation of certain statements which appear to have been purposely left in obscurity, but which are of grave interest to the country and to the individuals, whomsoever they may be, against whom those charges are made. I would gladly have taken the first opportunity, after the meeting of this House, of bringing the subject under your Lordships' notice, and would have done so even without notice last night but for the lengthened debate upon another subject,—especially as the matter had been discussed in the other House. It may be said by some that, after what has passed in the other

  1271
  House, it is now unnecessary to trouble your Lordships upon this subject; but I cannot leave this matter entirely in other hands, and I feel it a duty, not only to my late colleagues but to myself, to defend in my place in Parliament the policy of the late Government, and especially of that department over which I had recently the honour to preside. I shall not allude to the tone or the language of Mr. Disraeli's speech, and the few remarks I shall make will have reference to some statements which may be supposed to be founded upon official information. I will first draw your Lordships' attention to the statements in Mr. Disraeli's speech:—
  "It is well now for us to think lightly of the perils we have passed through—even to forget them; but when I tell you, and tell you seriously, that the question of peace or war, when we acceded to office, was not a question of weeks or of days but of hours, I am sure you will gladly remember that peace has been preserved, while the honour of the country has been vindicated."
  Now, my Lords, I will say there is not one particle of foundation for that statement; and, in the face of your Lordships and of the country, I give it a direct and unqualified contradiction. I go further, and say that, when the right hon. Gentleman made that statement, he must either have laboured under such culpable ignorance of facts and official information to which he had access as would disqualify him from speaking upon the subject, or he must have been aware of the real fact. There is no alternative for a Gentleman occupying the position which Mr. Disraeli does. I am sorry to have to speak in strong terms, and I think your Lordships will do me the justice to allow that it is not my usual custom to do so; but I cannot speak otherwise than in strong terms when I am called upon to vindicate my late colleagues and myself from a charge of having brought the country to the brink of war, and left to our successors the duty of preserving peace and maintaining the dignity of the country. I cannot speak but in strong terms when I declare there is no foundation for the insult to the Emperor of the French—for an insult it is to say that he would be false to the friendly protestations so often made towards this country; that he would be false to the policy so long and so honourably adhered to by him—false to every principle of justice and prudence; and that he was upon the point of waging a war that would have sacrificed all those great interests which now so happily and harmoniously knit together the two countries, merely on account
  1272
  of some temporary irritation, arising from some unexplained cause. I profess to your Lordships that I am as ignorant as probably most of you are of the cause which is supposed to have led to the danger which has now passed away, and of which we knew nothing and heard nothing until last Wednesday at Slough; for, up to the moment of my quitting the Foreign Office, our relations with France were as intimate, as cordial, and as confidential as at any time. I am sure my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—to whom, the day after he took office, I communicated all information which I thought would be of use to him—will not charge me with treachery in having concealed from him the probability of war being declared against us that very morning. I do not speak in measured terms, my Lords, upon this occasion, because I desire to place the people of this country upon their guard against statements such as those which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the habit of making for the purpose of gaining temporary applause. No such caution, however, I believe, is necessary so far as London is concerned. I say so, because, being naturally curious to know what was the feeling of the commercial classes in this Metropolis upon the subject, and what effect the astounding revelations of the right hon. Gentleman had produced upon the moneyed interests, I looked into the newspapers, and made inquiry of several gentlemen connected with the city, to ascertain how those statements had operated, and I found that they were regarded as nothing more than the figment of a fiction, coming as they did from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that, consequently, prices did not fall, nor was the slightest panic created. I wish also, my Lords, to give the most distinct contradiction to the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman in consequence of the answers which upon two separate occasions—namely, last evening and the Friday previous—he returned to the charges which were made upon him in reference to this subject. On Friday the right hon. Gentleman adhered to all the statements which he had made at Slough, and openly declared that, if Lord John Russell had addressed his observation to Lord Palmerston instead of to himself, he would have learnt that at the time when the late Government went out of office the danger of war between this country and France was imminent. That statement the right hon. Gentleman supported by an

  1273
  allusion which I can look upon in no other light than as an affront to the understandings of those to whom his remarks were addressed. He referred to a portion of a speech which my noble Friend Lord Palmerston had made, in reply to a question which had been put to him by an hon. Member in the other House of Parliament, as to whether Her Majesty's Government would insist on the publication in the Moniteur of Count Walewski's despatch giving expression to the regret of the French Emperor that the addresses of the French colonels should have been published. Now, I wish to remind your Lordships that that question followed many other inquiries of a similar character which were then almost daily put, and which were calculated to give personal offence to the French Emperor, and, as a consequence, to create great irritation in France. My noble Friend, in replying to the question, asked the House of Commons whether they desired that those confidential and intimate relations between that country and our own which then so happily subsisted should continue, or whether they approved a course of proceeding by means of which a spirit of bitterness and animosity would be engendered between the two nations, which could not but lead to the worst results. Now, will your Lordships believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to connect the fact that my noble Friend had not deemed it to be his duty to answer the inquiry which I have just mentioned into a proof that upon the answer to it depended the question of peace or war? If the right hon. Gentleman had had the candour to read the whole of the reply of my noble Friend, he would have seen that he declined to answer the question which was put to him because he thought it was extremely absurd. The right hon. Gentleman, however, went on to state that the French Ambassador had quitted this country before the late Government went out of office, and that everybody considered that a circumstance such as that could not have taken place except as a consequence of the existence of a most critical state of affairs. Now, it is perfectly true that M. Persigny did leave England a short time before the late Government resigned the reins of power, but he quitted it upon urgent private business, which for some time previously demanded his presence in France. He had asked for, and had obtained, leave of absence from his post; but he told me that he would not, and in point
  1274
  of fact he did not, take advantage of that permission until he was in a position to do so without laying his departure from England open to misconstruction. With the spirit in which M. Persigny did leave this country no person, I may add, ought to be better acquainted than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, neither could he have been unaware that our relations with France at the time were not such as he described to the House of Commons. M. Persigny returned to England two days subsequent to the resignation of the late Government in a spirit anything but unfriendly, and although Her Majesty's present Administration was not then definitively formed, yet I, being aware that my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) was to be my successor in office, requested M. Persigny to put himself in communication with the noble Earl, and in addition wrote a letter to my noble Friend informing him of the arrival of M. Persigny in this country. If, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the observations which he made, referred to the time when M. Persigny subsequently left England, I am not prepared to say that the circumstances of the case were not of a somewhat delicate nature, because it was the talk of the whole town that he had received the assurances upon the part of Her Majesty's Government which he had conveyed to his own Government; that those assurances had not been fulfilled, and that he consequently could not continue to carry on the business of his office with safety or satisfaction. Such, as I have mentioned, were the reasons assigned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by way of substantiating the statements which he had previously made, and he assigned those reasons in the absence of my noble Friend, Lord Palmerston, who, he said, could give a very different version of our relations with France at the time when the late Government left office from that which I have just submitted to your Lordships' notice. Well, Lord Palmerston did appear in his place in the House of Commons last evening, and did give precisely the same version; and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose and acknowledged that a war with France was not imminent when we quitted office, notwithstanding that he upon a former occasion declared that the fact that my noble Friend declined to answer a question which was put to him showed that a contest with France was at hand; that the French Ambassador had

  1275
  left the country while the late Government was in power under very critical circumstances; and that it was our truckling policy towards France—a policy which had been departed from by Her Majesty's present advisers—which had rendered the breaking out of a war extremely probable. Upon statements such as those, my Lords, it is scarcely necessary to make a single comment. But, as the right hon. Gentleman thought proper to allude to what he is pleased to call the truckling policy of the late Government towards France, and to the necessity which was imposed upon our successors of vindicating the injured honour of England, I deem it my duty—for otherwise I should be well content to let bygones be bygones—not to suffer those charges to pass altogether unnoticed. In dealing with them, let me again solemnly assure your Lordships that the Conspiracy Bill was not introduced into the other House of Parliament at the request, and still less at the dictation of the French Government. The whole subject had been referred to the law officers of the Crown before even the despatch of Count Walewski reached us, and the Bill had for its object the removal of manifest defects, or, at all events, of admitted doubts, from our laws. As to the expediency of introducing some such measure, I will appeal to the testimony of my noble Friend at the head of the Government. He, in a speech which he delivered in this House on the first night of the meeting of Parliament after the Christmas holidays, and which was no less distinguished by its eloquence than by its wisdom, its foresight, and the conciliatory spirit which it breathed, thus spoke of our relations with France:—
  "It is of the utmost importance that we should hear from Her Majesty's Ministers without delay whether they intend to take any steps in consequence of the atrocious attempt which has been made on the life of the French Emperor—any steps which, even if they should afford no effectual security for the protection of the lives of foreign Sovereigns, may serve at least to indicate the good will towards France which exists upon the part of the English people, and which may show that we are prepared to do everything which may fairly be expected at our hands. I do not presume to express any opinion as to the specific measures which may be introduced with a view of striking somewhat more terror into the minds of persons by whom such crimes are contemplated, but I may give utterance to the hope that Her Majesty's Ministers may be able to see their way to the passing of some law which may prove effectual for the suppression of these attempts at assassination while it does not infringe on the vital principles of the constitution. To the enact-
  1276
  ment of such a measure as that, Parliament would' I feel assured, be prepared to give a cheerful assent."
  Now, my Lords, I ask the noble Earl who gave expression to these statements whether the Bill which we introduced did not fall short of, rather than exceed, such a measure as that which he had shadowed forth? The proposition which we made violated no constitutional principle. It respected, to the fullest extent, the right of asylum in this country. All, in fact, that it aimed at effecting, and all that it could have done, was to place foreigners in regard to a particular offence upon the same footing as British subjects, for, with all due respect for the opinions of my noble and learned Friend near me (Lord Campbell), I am bound to state that our belief was, when we introduced this Bill, that a crime which, in the ease of a British subject, would render him liable to capital punishment, must, in the case of a foreigner, be dealt with as a much slighter offence. Your Lordships cannot fail to recollect, moreover, that the measure received the cordial support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of those hon. Gentlemen with whom he is in the habit of acting, while Mr. Napier, the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, made in favour of it a speech which those who had the pleasure of hearing it will not easily forget. I must, before I quit this subject, my Lords, be permitted again to repeat my conviction—altogether irrespective of the personal assurance to that effect given by the Emperor of the French himself—that in the despatch of Count Walewski no offence to this country was intended to be conveyed. If no offence was intended, there was nothing to reply to, and I do not see that we were called upon to take any further proceedings than we did in the matter. I may also observe, in reference to that point, that Sardinia was placed in somewhat the same position as ourselves; for a note was also addressed to the Government of that country shortly after the attempt on the life of the Emperor of the French took place. Six weeks after that a Bill was submitted by Count Cavour to the Sardinian Chamber, very different from that which we proposed to introduce, relating to the law of conspiracy and assassination, and to the composition of juries. On that occasion Count Cavour made a very able speech, parts of which were transmitted duly by telegraph to this country, where they were, as they deserved to be,

  1277
  greatly admired; and I remember the remarks which this speech elicited in the newspapers were anything but complimentary to us. I saw in more than one paper which supports the present Government, that if we had had such a Foreign Minister as Count Cavour the honour of England would have been vindicated, and Count Walewski's despatch would have been properly dealt with. Now, I just wish your Lordships to hear what Count Cavour said on that subject. After alluding to "the abominable deed, directed not only against the chief of the State, but against a lady who, a stranger to all parties, is known only for her acts of benevolence, and is loved and respected by all," and after observing that it was natural for the French Government to seek some means of preventing the repetition of such acts, M. Cavour observed that with this view France addressed all the friendly Powers, and addressed Sardinia in the despatch of the 23rd of January. He then proceeds:—
  "This despatch was not replied to in an official manner—that is, it was not answered by another despatch addressed to our Minister at Paris, to be communicated to the Minister of the Foreign Affairs of France. I must inform you that, according to the usages of diplomacy, there is no, strict necessity of replying officially in writing to a despatch communicated to us. A despatch communicated is not a note; it only contains observations made by one Government to another through the Minister, and the same importance and weight are not attached to it as to a note. A note ought to be answered by another note; a despatch, on the contrary, may be replied to either by another despatch addressed to the Minister, accredited to the Power which dictated the first, or an answer may be given verbally to the Minister by whom it is presented, or the Ambassador at the Court whence the despatch is received may be directed to reply. We were of opinion that it was better to adopt a verbal reply, as we well knew the state of legitimate anxiety of the French Government, and as we saw that it would be out of place and useless to enter into a species of contest on the subject."
  Now, without meaning to attach any undue importance to the course taken by the Minister of another country, I wish merely to say that we took precisely the same view of the matter, and that the reasons assigned by Count Cavour for not having replied to that despatch were also ours. Nevertheless, a Motion, having for its object to defeat the Conspiracy Bill, and to secure to foreign conspirators in this country as much liberty as they now enjoy, was brought forward in the House of Commons; and it was supported by a very ingenious speech which made a great im-
  1278
  pression on the House. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), and those who act with him, seeing that this impression had been made, and also that an opportunity was offered for attacking the Government, did not hesitate to join in that Vote of Censure upon the Ministry for not having replied to M. de Walewski's despatch, although upon a Motion precisely similar four or five days before, with a full knowledge that the despatch had not been answered, he had voted in that majority of 200 by which leave was given to introduce the Bill. Now, if we had been made fully aware of the meaning which the right hon. Gentleman attaches to the word "cabal," we might surely have applied it to the proceedings which took place on that occasion. But we made no such charge. It was our duty to bow to the decision of the House of Commons, and the Government resigned. My noble Friend at the head of the present Government took the earliest opportunity to announce that a reply on the subject of Count Walewski's despatch would be addressed to the French Government. That despatch was written and was laid on the table, and I have no fault whatever to find with it. It was couched in language of extreme courtesy; it said that the Government never doubted that Count Walewski had in writing his despatch merely intended to bring before Her Majesty's Government a state of things which was considered dangerous to France. My noble Friend, with a frankness which I thought did him great honour, added that the Government had all along been of opinion that a misconstruction had been put on Count Walewski's despatch; and he asked M. de Walewski to repeat the assurances which he had already given, and to state that he had not intended to make any insinuations injurious to the morality and honour of this country. Count Walewski accordingly, in his answer, in a somewhat acrid tone renewed the assurances which he had already given. He said that the Imperial Government learned with satisfaction that Her Majesty's present Ministry, like their predecessors, were under no mistake as to the intentions of the French Government. He stated that the Emperor had never thought of seeking the assistance of any foreign Power to increase his own personal security; that it never entered into his mind to suppose that English legislation had given protection to crime, or that the course of English legislation would be changed; and that he could not understand

  1279
  how any expressions in his despatch had been so misapprehended; but, as the expressions and intentions of the Imperial Government had been misapprehended, he should decline to enter into any fresh discussion. There the matter ended. We did not want to quarrel with France; France did not want to quarrel with us; the honour of England was not assailed; and, if it had been assailed, that correspondence was a solemn farce which it was necessary to enact—I admit that—but which it was the wish and interest of everybody to forget, and which would have been forgotten if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not induced the men of Slough to believe in the surpassing difficulties which his Government had had to encounter in maintaining peace with France, and vindicating the honour of England. Another point to which I would wish to call attention is the statement made by Mr. Disraeli respecting the two engineers at Naples:—
  "With respect to the two engineers," said the right hon. Gentleman, "with all these difficulties to encounter, and with this undeniable want of strength in the popular House of the constitution, the Government of Lord Derby did succeed in freeing these two neglected and suffering Englishmen, and brought them back in triumph to that Country which had so long felt indignation inexpressible at their unmerited suffering, and shame for the weakness of that Government which had permitted them so long to endure it."
  Now, I am sure my noble Friend the Earl of Malmesbury will believe I am sincere when I say that I should be the last person to detract from his merits, or either on this or on any other subject to deprive him of any credit to which he is entitled. I am bound to say, I think he has taken a perfectly proper course on this subject, and I sincerely hope he will be successful. But let me remind your Lordships that the present Government stand in a very different position from the last on this question. A short time ago I explained the reasons why we were unavoidably in ignorance of the real nature of the proceedings respecting the Cagliari, of the coercion used towards her crew, and of the treatment which our countrymen had suffered. We knew nothing of that until the middle of December last. All these matters have been made known, however, since the present Government came into office; and when the various points under reference to the law officers of the Crown had been cleared up, and he was strengthened by their opinion, my noble Friend had a locus standi of remonstrance under international
  1280
  law, of which he has very properly availed himself. But when the right hon. Gentleman said that these two Englishmen were utterly neglected, he says that to which the papers laid on your Lordships' table give the most authentic and conclusive denial. These men were not neglected. Among other acts of interference of the late Government was this:—We informed the Neapolitan Government long ago that, whatever might be their forms of procedure, if our two countrymen were not more humanely treated, and unless their friends were permitted to see them, we should make our application in another manner, and through a different organ; the consequence of which was that these unfortunate men were better cared for. Long before the late Government resigned, the two engineers received proper treatment in prison; at all events, their prison was a paradise compared with that in which others of the accused were confined. Before the late Government resigned, Watt, on account of the state of his health, was delivered over to the Consul, though certainly under his responsibility to produce him again should it be necessary. My noble friend desired Mr. Lyons to proceed from Rome to Naples to watch the proceedings. We did not do this because we had confidence in the Consul, Mr. Barber, to whose zeal and ability Mr. Lyons himself bore evidence. I believe—and my noble Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that Mr. Lyons, like the Consul, applied for the liberation of Park on the ground of insanity, and that on that ground alone he was set free. Both Park and Watt were certainly afterwards sent home to England; and I must say that, as the King of Naples has many reasons for being better satisfied with the present than the late Ministry, I think it would be extremely ungrateful if he did not endeavour to make things as agreeable to them as possible. I think I may say, however, that Park and Watt were not unconditionally set at liberty; and probably it would not be very safe for them to return to Naples and place themselves again within the jurisdiction of the Neapolitan Government.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Perfectly safe.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I am very glad to hear it. But they were not unconditionally liberated.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Yes.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I repeat that I am very glad to hear it, though

  1281
  that is not the understanding throughout the country. But, at any rate, I think the right hon. Gentleman would have done well not to indulge in a song of triumph until he knew whether the indemnity which my noble Friend has very properly demanded for these two Englishmen is granted, and whether the King of Naples consents to the arbitration which is proposed to him. Again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminds the meeting at Slough that,—
  "During all this period, while we had to maintain and establish peace with France,—while we were vindicating the honour of England, and the rights and privileges of all that dwell on its soil, while we were freeing from a foreign dungeon our suffering follow countrymen,—the arts of faction were pursuing us on every side. A war between Naples and Sardinia, which would have been a war that would have set the whole world in flames, was nearly precipitated in order to inconvenience, and perhaps upset, a Government which was the choice, after due reflection, of the Queen of this country."
  Now, this was another surprise to me. I do not myself know, and I have not been able to meet with any one who was awere of these incendiary proceedings. Your Lordships will recollect that a member of the House of Commons had for some time a Motion on the paper of that House, the constant postponement of which had been complained of, expressing a hope that this country would support the Sardinian Government in any just demands which they might make upon the Neapolitan Government; but that Motion was unhesitatingly withdrawn when it was stated by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that the Sardinian Government and Her Majesty's Government were agreed as to the terms to be proposed. If, therefore, this was not a romance like the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I hope my noble Friend will inform us who were the intriguers who were prepared to set the whole world in flames in order to inconvenience Her Majesty's Government, and whether those persons still persevere in such intrigues and machinations. I next come to that part of Mr. Disraeli's speech which I think is more repugnant to justice, and to that generous and gentlemanlike spirit which, in my opinion, should animate every Minister of the Crown towards a faithful and absent public servant. With respect to India, the right hon. Gentleman asks, "if it was always to be massacre and confiscation? or, on the other hand, was it to be discriminating amnesty?" and then he concludes by
  1282
  saying that "we have laid down principles for the reconstruction of our Indian empire which England approves and Europe admires." Why, my Lords, what is this but to say that Lord Canning was the advocate of massacre, confiscation, and unmitigated vengeance, and that it was reserved for the present Government to devise a discriminating amnesty, and to enjoy the glory of reconstructing our Indian empire upon principles "which England approves and Europe admires, and which, if acted on, will maintain the greatness and glory of our country?" And this ungenerous attack upon Lord Canning was made four days after the publication of Lord Canning's despatch explaining his policy, which must have been satisfactory to the minds of all reasonable men, and four days after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that Her Majesty's Government had sent out a message to Lord Canning expressing their confidence in him! I declare to heaven that in the annals of this country I know no instance to compare with the conduct which has been pursued towards Lord Canning, who by his judgment, courage, ability, and well-tempered humanity throughout a time of immense difficulty, has earned for himself the approval of this country, and ought to be entitled to the support of its Government. I can fancy nothing more mischievous—to use a very mild term—than the constant republication, by fresh editions always in a new Form, of that unfortunate despatch of the Secret Committee, which, so far from being a message of peace and conciliation to India, was only an insult to Lord Canning, and could not have a pacificatory tendency either with regard to the Natives of Oude, or of any other part of India. For where, my Lords, is the Sovereign we have dispossessed, and whose territory we have occupied—where are the people whom we have brought under our rule—who will not apply that despatch to themselves, translated as it will be into every language in India? Where is the people in that vast Continent who will not say that "their former Government, however bad, was at all events, a Native one," and that in endeavouring to restore that Government and to expel foreign usurpers, they have the high sanction of Her Majesty's Ministers in this country? The right hon. Gentleman says that the policy adopted by the present Government has elicited the approval

  1283
  of England and the admiration of Europe. In what manner was the approval of England evinced? Why, the moment the despatch containing these principles was published, notices on the subject were given in both Houses of Parliament, the author of the despatch resigned, and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) felt compelled to sanction this self-immolation of one of the most important Members of his Cabinet to prevent a manifestation of the disapproval of England! The right hon. Gentleman says that Europe admires the despatch; and I am not sorry that he has recognized the importance of public opinion abroad, because I think it is too much the fashion in this country to despise that opinion, and to consider it very impertinent on the part of other nations to express an opinion as to the manner in which we manage our affairs. I think, however, there can be no greater fallacy, for nations cannot, any more than individuals, afford to brave the opinions of their neighbours. Their respect, their deference, their recognition of the honour and honesty of our proceedings are essential elements of the power of this country, because they constitute that moral prestige which in itself is power. Be it remembered, my Lords, that in Europe our enemies very far outnumber our well-wishers. Those who are jealous of our wealth and power, and who detest our free institutions, arc legion; and therefore they have admired this despatch on account of the frankness with which they say it characterizes our rule in India. They say they had long known the charges of bad faith which were made against us in India, but that it exceeded their most sanguine expectations to hear such charges confessed by the Ministers of the Crown: they say, however, that while they admire, they marvel that those who confess their guilt, on the part of their country should have done nothing and proposed nothing, by way of compensating the injured King of Oude, beyond informing his late subjects that they are engaged in a legitimate war, and encouraging them to fresh insurrection against the troops of the Queen of England. It is asked abroad, my Lords, in what position is the Queen of England placed in reference to India, for the Indian territories arc vested in Her Majesty? By the Bills now before Parliament, this investment is more solemnly and formally effected, and there is no exception made of the territory of Oude: yet at the same
  1284
  time we inform the world that the King of Oude was our faithful ally; that he has never broken through his engagements with us; that he has often assisted us in our difficulties, and that we have obtained possession of his territories by fraud. We can only have obtained them by a fraud, because we could not have compassed that object according to the only treaty of which the King of Oude was cognizant, and therefore we completed this nefarious proceeding under a treaty of which he had no cognizance whatever. The Queen of England is therefore the Queen of Oude by a disgraceful juggle. I think the noble Earl at the head of the Government and the noble Earl lately at the head of the Board of Control might well say that great inconvenience would arise from the publication of the despatches; and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done well to remember it, before he assured the public that our Indian empire was about being reconstructed upon principles "which England approves and Europe admires, and which, if acted on, will maintain the greatness and glory of our country." There is only one more passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which I will call your Lordships' attention. The right hon. Gentleman says that—
  "The sense and spirit of the House of Commons have baffled the unceasing intrigues and the restless machinations by which, from the first moment of our entering office, the Government of the Queen has been assailed; and, gentlemen, this leads me to the very key of the position. There exists at this moment in England that which has not existed since the days of Charles II.; there is in England at this moment a cabal,—a cabal which has no other object but to upset the Government of the Queen, and to obtain their ends in a manner the most reckless and determined. Now, this cabal consists of some scheming English politicians and some foreign intriguers. They possess resources of all kinds and in considerable amount, and they are reckless in the mode in which they dispose of them. Their social influences are considerable, and they are perverted without the slightest remorse to obtain their political ends; they possess great sources of political information, especially with regard to foreign affairs, obtained in a manner not very constitutional."
  Now, my Lords, this is a very astonishing proposition. I had almost supposed from the last passage that the right hon. Gentleman did me the honour to refer to me; but my conscience is perfectly easy on the matter, because, although I do take great interest in all foreign questions, the only information I now obtain on such subjects

  1285
  is gained by perfectly constitutional means—namely, from the newspapers. I have transmitted to my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) every letter I have received upon foreign affairs since I came into office, and he very handsomely acknowledged the fact the other evening. I have never answered any letters from Ministers abroad since I left office, and I have only written two or three letters with the object of removing some possible misapprehension which I thought might exist as to the course my noble Friend might pursue, and of smoothing the difficulties which might thus occur to my successor. I think, however, this is a matter of too grave a character to be lightly passed over. If the statement had been simply post-prandial, and bad been intended merely to stimulate the men of Buckinghamshire to give cordial support to gentlemen who were supposed to be engaged daily in a hand-to-hand fight with a band of opponents, a frank avowal of the fact might have satisfied the popular mind. But if this was not the case—if there really exists in this country such a cabal, if such a state of things has been brought about by a party of Englishmen and foreigners that we are obliged to refer to the worst period of our history and the moment of our greatest national depravity for a precedent, I can only say that I can imagine nothing more calculated to outrage the feelings of the people of this country, or more certain to render them indignant at those Englishmen who have been leagued with foreigners to bring about such a state of things for political and nefarious objects. I know of no foreigners in this country who possess such considerable and ample resources, and who have great social influence, except the corps diplomatique. I have the honour and gratification of being acquainted with every member of that body, and I can certainly say that I am satisfied no member of that body ever thought of interfering in our domestic affairs, and that there is not one who would not be most indignant at the imputation that he was supposed to have any connection with these nefarious intrigues. I am sure my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) shares my feelings, and will readily concur with me that this charge does not apply, directly or indirectly, to the corps diplomatique, and I trust that he will, if he can, inform us who are those intriguing Englishmen and foreigners who are thus setting them-
  1286
  selves up to interfere in our affairs. I will not further trespass on your attention. I can assure your Lordships that I have not the least intention to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, but I felt that I had a duty to perform both to my late colleagues and to myself, and also to the public; and that I ought not to pass unnoticed the recent speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the leader of the House of Commons, so large a portion of which was directed against the Department over which I had lately the honour of presiding.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, before my noble Friend sat down, I thought he was going to conclude his able and elaborate speech with some Motion; and I now hardly know in what manner I should treat the observations he has made, and whether I must not, in the first instance, intreat the indulgence of the House if I imitate the irregularity of my noble Friend, who has made a long speech without any apparent object that I can perceive—unless, indeed, it be to make a personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I have to thank my noble Friend for having given me intimation yesterday of his intention to bring under the notice of your Lordships, however ever irregularly, the speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer after a dinner given to him by his constituents; because, though the course pursued seems to be elevating, perhaps, that post-prandial speech to the dignity of a State paper, yet it has caused me to have the great gratification of reading again with mere attention the whole of that very able and amusing discourse. Perhaps my noble Friend, in order to put himself in order, will move that a copy of that important State paper should be laid on the table of the House. Of course, when the discussion is ended, he would be prepared to withdraw the Motion; but such a Motion would be the legitimate conclusion of the somewhat illegitimate course he has pursued. However, in consequence of the notice given me by my noble Friend, I, following the example of great authorities in another place, and to prevent the possibility of mistake, obtained a copy of the speech in question and made it my duty to examine it again; and, though I cannot vouch for the authenticity of every expression, I am ready to adopt the report, which proceeds from a quarter which is generally correct in its version of public speeches, I shall therefore assume that the

  1287
  speech as here reported is the language that was used by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And now I must be permitted to say that, if on the part of my right hon. Friend, that if anything was said in the course of these post-prandial observations which justifies a discussion in either House of Parliament—if there was any indiscretion committed by my right hon. Friend, in entering upon the unnecessary discussion of topics which had better not been entered into at all, it sinks into insignificance as compared with the indiscretion which my noble Friend has exhibited in the manner in which he has dealt with questions of the utmost delicacy and importance; and that too, not before a constituency, not at a festive meeting, not in the natural exultation of a great Parliamentary success achieved by his party, but in his place in the House of Lords, where he has deliberately and on purpose raked up the recollection of various transactions which, to my mind, for the interest of Europe had better been consigned to oblivion. I do not come forward for the purpose of concurring in every single expression or every single word which may have been used—if, indeed, they all were used—by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but I am prepared to answer the challenge of my noble Friend with respect to the main parts of his charge against my right hon. Friend.
  My Lords, it is said that my right hon. Friend, in the first instance, stated that we were, at the time we succeeded to the Government, in a position in which the possibility of a war with France was a question not of months and weeks but of hours. Now, my noble Friend opposite has entered into a long and laboured explanation on this subject, and into a somewhat unnecessary discussion, as it appears to me, of all the circumstances which attended a very critical period of the alliance between France and England; and he has sought to involve my right hon. Friend in a contradiction—reforring, again, irregularly for that purpose to a statement made by me—between the conduct pursued by my right hon. Friend on one occasion, and that followed by him on another. In his speech at Slough it is alleged that my right hon. Friend had declared that, on the accession of the present Government to office, war with France was most imminent; whereas, in a recent explanation of my right hon.
  1288
  Friend, he had denied that he had ever said, or intended to say, that there was any danger whatever of war while the late Government were in power. It is the last assertion said to have been made by my right hon. Friend in his place in Parliament which my noble Friend opposite has combatted. That assertion, however, I consider to be perfectly consonant with the other declaration of my right hon. Friend, namely, that at the time we succeeded to office there was an imminent danger of a rupture with France, and possibly of a war. Now, my noble Friend has adverted to the previous history of the period, and has done me the honour of quoting the speech I had made at the opening of Parliament, in which I stated, referring to the atrocious attack made on the life of the Emperor, that I thought it a matter of great importance, and necessary to testify our good will to France, that a measure should be introduced which should have the appearance, at all events, if not the effect, of putting a more effectual check on the machinations of those persons who were abusing the hospitality we afforded them, and also to testify our anxiety, not only for the life of the Emperor, but also for the maintenance of those kindly feelings which happily existed between the peoples of the two nations. I think my noble Friend will hardly venture to say that at the time I made that statement he himself had not expressed in the strongest terms his apprehensions in regard to the relations of the two countries in the event of no measure of the kind being introduced into Parliament. I do not desire, nor will I attempt, to repeat conversations that have taken place, but my noble Friend opposite will not surely deny that he himself, not many days before that period, stated to me his opinion as to the very critical position of our relations with France, the magnitude and extent of which he said he could not foresee, if no steps were taken by the British Government to satisfy the irritated feelings of the French nation. Upon that statement, and being desirous of supporting the Government and of maintaining the alliance with France, which I knew to be at that time in danger, I did make the statement to which my noble Friend has alluded; but what my Right hon. Friend stated is—that it was not at the period when the late Government was in office that there was danger of a rapture with France, but when the present Government succeeded to office, upon the

  1289
  rejection and abandonment, of the measure introduced by the late Government—spontaneously and without pressure (for I am willing to adopt the statement of my noble Friend) to the passing of which it was notorious that the greatest importance was attached in France—when, I say, it was suddenly found impossible that that measure should be proceeded with, and when the expectations of legislation on so delicate a subject raised by the late Government fell to the ground and the most irritating language was held on this and the other side of the Channel, I do not hesitate to say, that if it had not been fur great prudence and moderation on the part of those charged with the management of affairs, both here and in France—it is impossible to deny that there was most serious and imminent danger of an immediate rupture between the two countries. And if there were not, I wish the noble Earl will explain why it was that on that very question of Mr. Milner Gibson's in the other House, notices were freely circulated to the friends of the then Government, to the effect that if his Motion should be unhappily adopted there was imminent danger of war with France? If there was no such danger those notices should not have been issued. I see that my noble Friend is taking a note of what I say. I do not mean to say that these notices were put in writing, but language was freely held, and apparently on authority on the part of those who used it, and whose business it was to bring down voters to support the policy of the then Government. I say, then, that after the measure of the late Government had fallen to the ground, and after the late Government, which had induced the French Government to expect the passing of the measure, retired from office, there was a feeling of the greatest possible irritation arising from the whole of those transactions; and was it not possible to say without overstraining expressions, that certain rupture and possible war between England and France might be a question not of weeks or days but of hours? Before going further I must say that my noble Friend has—I am quite sure, unintentionally—misstated the course pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the Bill to which he has alluded. The noble Earl said that on the first introduction of the Bill it met with the warm and unqualified approval and support of the
  1290
  Chancellor of the Exchequer. My noble Friend's memory is somewhat defective, for, unless mine is at fault, I believe that that measure received the sanction of a large body of the House of Commons as a mark of respect to the French Government and of good will towards France; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not allow the opportunity to pass without stating the extent of the support he was prepared to give to it. My right hon. Friend specifically reserved to himself the right of fully considering the course he should pursue on the second reading of the Bill if it should ever arrive at a second reading. So much for the "cordial support," to use the language of my noble Friend opposite, afforded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Bill which was afterwards, not withdrawn, but abandoned on the second reading. Well, my Lords, I say that the Government are entitled to some degree of commendation, and even of self-gratulation, for the success of the temperate and moderate course by which they sought to smooth down the angry feeling which existed in this country, and to remove a portion of that formidable irritation which prevailed on the other side, of the Channel. But, my Lords, I should be guilty of a gross jujustice—I should be acting in a manner wholly unworthy of the position which I hold, of the place in which I stand, and of the audience whom I am addressing—if I did let say that by far the greater portion of the credit which is due for preventing that possible rupture, and that probable alienation between the two countries, is due to the firmness, to the good sense, to the judgment, and to the cordial attachment to the British alliance which under all circumstances have been manifested by the illustrious man who rules over the empire of France. My Lords, it would have been impossible for man to maintain more firmly, more honourably, more consistently, with more regard to the dignity of this country and to the dignity of his own than the Emperor of the French has done the cordial alliance which has so long and so happily subsisted between the two countries; and it is to his intimate knowledge of this country—a knowledge which is not possessed by many of his countrymen, who consequently are apt to misconceive and misconstrue our actions—that is to be attributed the just perception which he has had of the difficulties under which the

  1291
  Government here laboured, and of the obstacles which existed to the fulfilment of not unnatural wishes and desires on his part; while it is owing to his good sense, to his loyalty, and to his good faith that he has given full play to that accurate perception of the real position of affairs, and has abstained from pressing claims to which he felt that this country could not and would not assent, and the pressing of which he truly believed would have been prejudicial to that good understanding which happily prevails between the two countries. My Lords, I venture to express my confident belief that the Emperor is now as firmly resolved as he ever has been—as firmly resolved as Her Majesty's Government certainly are—to maintain, to support, and to strengthen that alliance which is so invaluable to both countries; and if that alliance has been preserved and that cordial feeling restored after the temporary cloud which obscured the political horizon, although we may, perhaps, claim some credit for the course we have pursued in this country, the praise, I repeat, is mainly due to the sound judgment, the loyalty, and the good faith of that distinguished man the Emperor of the French.
  Now, my Lords, passing from the language which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is said to have inappropriately used with respect to the state of our relations with France when the present Government came into office, my noble Friend opposite proceeded to the next passage of the Buckinghamshire speech—namely, that in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took credit to himself and to his colleagues, unduly and unjustly my noble Friend thinks, for the course which they pursued with regard to the British engineers of the Cagliari. The noble Earl has stated most truly that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is entitled to every credit for the course he pursued and the means he used, and used successfully, for the purpose of procuring the liberation of those two unhappy men; and the noble Earl has said with great candour that, although, unfortunately, the Government with which he was connected were quite in ignorance of the real position of the case until it was too late to interfere with sufficient effect, yet they did what they could to procure some mitigation of the sufferings endured by our fellow-countrymen. I certainly think my noble Friend has taken advantage to the very utmost of
  1292
  his position. I do not deny that the noble Earl during the period he held the seals of the Foreign Department did make various representations, and did to a certain extent obtain from the Neapolitan Government a mitigation of the severer portion of that punishment to which unconvicted and, therefore we were bound to consider, innocent men had been condemned —namely, a long and painful imprisonment. But, my Lords, I must be permitted to say that the state of ignorance to which the noble Earl refers as his excuse for not having done more did not exist later, according to his own statement, than the month of December, whereas it was not till February that the change of Government took place. During the last days of the administration of the Foreign Department by the noble Earl he undoubtedly requested of the Neapolitan Government that one of the engineers, whose mind bad given way under the severity of the punishment to which he had been exposed should, in consequence of the state of his intellect, be withdrawn from the rigorous captivity to which he had been subjected, and should be transferred to an hospital at Naples, where the British Consul was himself to be security fur his production, whenever required, and where the noble Earl suggested the Neapolitan Government might place a guard to prevent the possibility of his escape. That is the position in which, upon succeeding to the administration of affairs, we found these two unfortunate individuals—one of them still in prison and still subject to all the hardships of prison life, and the other, whose reason had given way under the severity of his sufferings, withdrawn from prison and placed in an hospital under a guard, or at least the noble Earl having suggested that he should be placed under a guard, to prevent the possibility of his escape, the British Consul giving personal security for Ids appearance to undergo his trial when his mind should be restored. Now, my Lords, in "another place"—if I may follow the noble Earl in a very slight degree in the irregularity which he has committed—a very different line of defence has been adopted. The noble Viscount lately at the head of the Government ventured, if I am not misinformed, upon the statement that the liberation, if not of both, at least of one of these engineers was due, not to Her Majesty's present Government, but to the efforts and remonstrances of Her Ma-

  1293
  jesty's late Government. That is a statement made, not by the noble Earl opposite—he has made a very different statement—but by the noble Viscount who was at the head of the late Government.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My noble Friend the Member for Tiverton never said that both the engineers were liberated in consequence of the remonstrances of the late Government.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I said "of one if not of both;" but this shows upon a small scale the inconvenience of these irregular references to what persons have said, or are supposed to have said, in the other House of Parliament. Now, my Lords, the noble Viscount lately at the head of the Government is a person of very advanced age, very vigorous for his age, vigorous beyond the ordinary race of mortals; but the first sign of advancing age is generally a slight failure of memory, and to that growing infirmity, I think, is to be attributed the astounding statement that the members of the late Government, and not those of the present, are the persons to whom one at least of these engineers is indebted for his liberation from a Neapolitan prison. As that statement has been made, let me remind your Lordships of the facts. It was on the 15th of February that the noble Earl opposite preferred the request to which I have already referred—namely, that one of the engineers, whose mind has given way—there was nothing said of the other—should be transferred from a prison to an hospital, there to be kept under a guard, the British Consul giving personal security for his attendance whenever he might be called upon to undergo his trial. That was one of the last acts of the Administration of the noble Earl. When the present Government come into office, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs lost no time in despatching Mr. Lyons to Naples—not that he undervalued in the slightest degree the energy, the activity, and the ability which had been shown previously by the acting consul, Mr. Barbar, but because he naturally thought that a person filling an important diplomatic situation, though not at Naples, would probably have more influence with the Neapolitan Government than a mere acting consul. Well, my Lords, it was not until the 18th of March that Signor Carafa, in consequence of strong representations made by Mr. Lyons on the 16th, communicated the intelligence that
  1294
  the King of Naples, out of deference, as he stated, to the British Government, was willing to permit the unconditional return of the engineer Watt, on account of the state of his health, to his country instead of being kept in Naples; and shortly afterwards, from the same alleged motive—deference to the British Government—a similar indulgence was granted to the other captive, whose health, though not his mind, had also given way under the severity of sufferings. Her Majesty's present Government had thus the happiness of seeing restored, I shall not say to health, but to their country and to their friends, these unfortunate men, although during the whole period (after their capture) of the administration of the Foreign Department by the noble Earl opposite no steps had been taken for the purpose, at all events, of procuring or promoting their liberation. These, my Lords, are the facts of the case, and again I say, without referring to the precise terms, which were perhaps a little inflated, used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in describing the effects produced, that I think my right hon. Friend was fully justified in claiming for himself and his colleagues the credit of having effected the restoration to their family and friends of these two unfortunate men after their long and cruel captivity in a Neapolitan prison. Now, my Lords, the noble Earl opposite, not satisfied with the contrast which we are entitled to draw between the course pursued by the present Government and that adopted by Her Majesty's late advisers, has the confidence to go a step further and to say that Mr. Disraeli ought at all events to have been enabled to state that these persons had obtained an unconditional release, and that the indemnity which he admits we have very properly asked on their behalf has been conceded by the Government of Naples. The question of indemnity is one which, as my noble Friend well knows, is under discussion between this country and Naples. We have made a claim and mean to support it. With regard to the other question, my noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) has been able to inform the noble Earl opposite that the release of the engineers is absolute, entire, and unconditional.
  My Lords, I said that I would not comment upon every particular expression attributed to my right hon. Friend, or any language that may be said to be inflated, addressed at a dinner party of his con-

  1295
  stituents. I do not think that if speeches made upon occasions like this are to be brought under serious discussion in both Houses of Parliament, and are to be made the subjects of Motions or of debates equivalent to Motions for two nights together in one House, and for a considerable space of time on another night in the other House—I do not think that Her Majesty's late Government are the persons the most proper in the world to criticise minutely particular forms of expression, or to complain of any little indiscretion of language or of sentiment which may have been committed even by a Minister of the Crown in a postprandial speech upon a festive occasion, whether to his constituents or to a miscellaneous assemblage. I could point to one or two instances—one more remote and the other not very distant—in which language has been held which, if subjected to the test of severe criticism and Parliamentary investigation, and if the speeches in which it occurred had been treated as State papers, as that of my right hon. Friend has been by my noble Friend opposite, would have been found not to be such as was best calculated to secure and maintain perfect harmony between this and other countries. My noble Friend opposite has cleverly and ingeniously coloured some portions of the speech of my right hon. Friend. I certainly did not expect him to make more than a passing allusion—from which it was impossible to refrain—to that gradually dissolving view—to the bursting of that great bubble—to that breaking up of the ice of the Neva, which took place with sudden violence, after various cracks and groans and indications of what was going to take place—the gradual withdrawal, one by one, of single cards from that carefully constructed edifice of pasteboard, until at last that which it had cost some persons so much pains to build up collapsed in a single moment, came to nothing, and fell to the ground, to the utter and irretrievable confusion of its authors. I did not expect the noble Earl to comment on that part of my right hon. Friend's speech. I do not know whether he read it with as much amusement as I did; but greater than my amusement was my conviction of its truthfulness. I felt eminently convinced that, great as was the wit, great as was the cleverness, great as was the humour of that most graphic description, that which most peculiarly appertained to it was undeniable truth. There was no exaggeration even
  1296
  of colouring, for no exaggeration could be applied to that matchless scene at which—I shall remember it to the last day of my life—I had the good fortune to be present. But, my Lords, there was one part of the speech of my right hon. Friend to which, as he was making a running comment, taking down its undue pretensions and rebuking its boastful language, the noble Earl opposite might have referred. Why did not he say something on the subject of finance? There were three topics to which my hon. right Friend specially referred, and with which he summed up his speech. These were foreign affairs, the position in which we found them, and that in which they stand now; the finances of the country, the position in which we found them, and that which they now occupy; and the policy which Her Majesty's Government have recommended for India. These were the three topics upon which my right hon. Friend in this celebrated speech at Slough took credit to the Government. Upon two of them my noble Friend opposite has ventured to join issue; upon the third he has been discreetly and totally silent. He did not mention as one of the merits which were claimed by my right hon. Friend—and of course by not disputing it he admits the validity of the claim—those financial arrangements to which in a position of great and anticipated difficulty we have had the rare merit of obtaining universal, or almost universal, assent. My noble Friend will certainly recollect that the late Government were about to enter upon the discussion of the budget with no very sanguine anticipations as to the resources of the country, or as to the view which might be taken of the measures which they intended to submit to Parliament. If I am correctly informed, no mode of rectifying the disorder of the finances occurred to them better than that which would not have been a very popular measure—a considerable increase of the income tax. The late Government, and—if there are such persons as the members of a Cabal—the Cabal, of those who, in the House or out of the House, Englishmen or foreigners, were looking forward to the destruction of the present Ministry immediately on its formation, anticipated that the budget would he the inevitable destruction of this incompetent Government. It was said, "They have succeeded by an accident in ousting the late Government and getting into place for a moment, but it is only for forty-eight hours." That

  1297
  was the language held: "Don't be alarmed, this is nothing serious, it is but an affair of forty-eight hours." Eight and forty hours clapsed, and then it was, "You will see that the whole thing fall to the ground, and then will be that glorious and much-longed-for restoration" which is the main object of noble Lords opposite. Weeks clapsed and there was no indication of the desired consummation, and then it was said, "But there is the budget, they never can get over that. We know the state in which the finances were when we left office. We are very well out of it, leaving our successors to deal with the budget, which we know that we should have found an insurmountable difficulty." We did deal with the budget, and dealt with it in such a manner that, without violating public faith, carrying on the promised reduction of that most obnoxious income tax—which the late Government had intended to maintain, if not to increase—we, by the addition of taxes, not large in amount, not very important, and to which few persons took any objection, made such an arrangement as to secure for ourselves a fair surplus for the year. My Lords, may I go a little further? May I take the liberty of mentioning another transaction which has not come under public notice? I refer to the issue of Exchequer bills. The Exchequer bills of last year bore interest at 2½d per diem. £14,000,000 of bills had to be reissued during the present year, and they have been placed at such a reduced rate of interest as, upon a sum of £517,000 paid for interest, amounts to a saving of not less than £214,000, or two-fifths of the whole amount. I cannot say how much of that reduction is to be ascribed to the possibility of raising money on more advantageous terms than last year; but it is either to the good management or to the good fortune of my right hon. Friend that it is to be ascribed that the country has enjoyed the advantage of this great saving.
  The last topic into which I shall follow my noble Friend—because I will not deal with personal matters—I will not deal with those questions of intrigues and cabals, whether foreign or domestic—I will not deal with those questions of the means, more or less unscrupulous, which have been resorted to for the purpose of opposing and placing obstacles in the way of the existing Government without a reasonable hope of forming a Ministry to replace it,—I will proceed to a matter, in adverting to
  1298
  which, I think, the noble Earl opposite has done grievous injustice to the intention and even to the plain language of my right hon. Friend, by supposing that the reference to India was meant as an ungenerous and ungentlemanlike attack upon the character, the conduct, and the policy of Lord Canning. What was the language used by my right hon. Friend? He did not say that we had reconstructed our Indian empire, as he was represented by my noble Friend to have said. What he did say was, that we had laid down a policy for India which we believed would be the means of reconstructing its social condition, and that that was a policy of considerate and discriminating amnesty in preference to one of confiscation, of violence, and of massacre. Now, I do not believe that my right hon. Friend intended to convey, nor do I think that he can be taken to have conveyed, the charge against Lord Canning, that he was in favour of a policy of undiscriminating violence and massacre. Lord Canning did undoubtedly, by the Proclamation of which so much has been said in this country, give colour to the opinion that it was his intention to adopt a principle of very extensive confiscation; but a principle of violence, a principle of massacre, never, I am sure, entered the mind of my noble Friend the noble Viscount at the head of the Government of India, and was never imputed to him by my right hon. Friend. But it is notorious to every one that the atrocities which were committed in the earlier period of what I hope I may now call the late revolt in India had excited in the minds of people in this country, had excited in the minds of civilians and of military men in India, a fierceness and a desire for savage vengeance, which Lord Canning was the first to deprecate, and which it appeared to Her Majesty's Government to be most important to put down; and, not at the period when we were remonstrating against the course which Lord Canning was, by his Proclamation, apparently about to pursue, but one month before, and immediately upon our accession to office, we impressed upon the Governor General, not for his own guidance, but in order to assure him of our support, that we recommended a principle of generous forbearance, of leniency, and of discriminating amnesty in preference to that principle of universal violence and general massacre which we knew was too much pressed upon him by many of those, both military men and civilians, by whom he was

  1299
  surrounded. My Lords, I say this, that when my right hon. Friend was speaking of the course which the Government had pursued, or intended to pursue; when he was vindicating our conduct before his assembled constituents; when he was taking credit for those things for which he thought the Government could fairly claim praise; there was no subject upon which he might more confidently appeal to the general good feeling, to the sound sense, and to the deliberate convictions of the people of this country in favour of our policy than when he said that we had laid down as the rule for the government of India, discriminative amnesty in contradistinction to universal confiscation, massacre and violence. And if my noble Friend quarrels with the expression that that policy, so declared, had obtained the approval of England and the admiration of Europe, I can only say that, "the admiration of Europe" might perhaps have been an oratorical addition to that which I believe to be the simple and naked truth. That policy has at all events obtained the unqualified approval of the people of England; and it is a remarkable circumstance that in the whole course of the discussions on this question in this and the other House of Parliament, while many persons have blamed, and many more have regretted, the publication of the private despatch to Lord Canning, there is no human being in this or the other House of Parliament who has ventured to stand up in his place and, as against the principles and doctrines laid down in that despatch, to maintain and uphold the doctrines and principles apparently laid down in the Proclamation of Lord Canning. Even the friends of Lord Canning in this House have stated distinctly that if such were the meaning to be attached to the Proclamation no terms would be too strong to use in condemnation of it; and in the other House no human being has risen for the purpose of defending the Proclamation itself in the plain, natural sense which, in the absense of any explanation, it necessarily bore in the minds of Her Majesty's Government. Well, then, the noble Earl adverts to the censure which has been passed in Europe with regard to the transactions relating to the kingdom of Oude. My Lords, you are quite aware that the language used on that subject was used in a despatch which was intended to meet the eye of the Governor General alone, and that all the circumstances there stated were so stated for the purpose of
  1300
  showing to Lord Canning the broad line of distinction which ought to be drawn between those misguided followers of the deposed King of Oude and the rest of the population. My Lords, I cannot but regret that my noble Friend opposite should, in the exercise of his discretion, have again referred to and given additional publicity to statements and to arguments used in a very different sense, and that he has used them in a manner which I feel will much aggravate the danger of misconstruction put upon the private despatch. I can emphatically say, except with regard to the policy of confiscation, which we disapprove, and except as violence and massacre might, though not intentionally, be the consequence of a protracted resistance arising out of that confiscation on the part of persons driven to despair, it was not the intention of my right hon. Friend, and I am sure it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in the slightest degree to impute to Lord Canning, or to cast in his teeth that revengeful, barbarous, and bloodthirsty spirit which, on the contrary, he has been the first to reprobate, but which it was absolutely necessary, if we wished to give to Lord Canning a real support, we should take the earliest opportunity of discouraging.
  My Lords, I think I have gone through all the topics contained in the statement of my noble Friend to winch it is necessary or becoming in me to refer. I must say that, although I have not shrunk from explaining and vindicating the statements made and the language held by my right hon. Friend—not, perhaps, in every particular term, but in substance and fact—and although I do not deny that the language of public men holding high office is to be more carefully and closely watched and criticised than the language of those to whom less responsibilities attach, yet I do think that, although the language used and the opinions expressed by my right hon. Friend might have called forth some casual criticism, and a passing notice from those who disapproved them, a great deal more has been made of this speech than is consistent with the dignity of either of the Houses, or with the importance of the questions to which it refers. I have not, however, shrunk from vindicating an absent Friend, and I think my noble Friend might have done well to recollect that that right hon. Gentleman on two successive evenings has been attacked on the same subject in his place in Parliament, where he had a right

  1301
  to speak, and that he has there given to his opponents, first one and then the other, such an explanation and such an answer as neither they nor the country will speedily forget.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not at all wonder at the evident difficulty which the noble Earl who has just addressed you so clearly felt in vindicating his absent Friend, or at his complaints of the irregularity of the course pursued by my noble Friend beside me (the Earl of Clarendon). The noble Earl in a solemn tone and manner has expressed his surprise that my noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) should have exhibited such an amount of indiscretion as to rake up old events which had much better be forgotten. But, I ask, was it my noble Friend's fault that he raked up those events which the leader of the Government in the other house of Parliament made the grounds of a speech delivered at a meeting of his constituents, in the presence of highly skilled reporters, and replete with foolish charges against my noble Friend and all those connected with the late Government? I contend that my noble Friend had no other course to pursue than to give a simple narrative of facts, and to show where the truth lay. I think my noble Friend was more than justified in the course he has taken, and that it would have been a dereliction of his duty to this House and the public if he had neglected to take that course. The noble Earl has gone over many parts of the Slough speech which were not alluded to by my noble Friend. He has adverted, among other things, to Mr. Disraeli's amusing description of the scene in the other House of Parliament on the conclusion of the Indian debate on the night of Monday week. I can assure the noble Earl that on reading that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I was as highly entertained as he appears to have been. But I cannot reconcile them, as the noble Earl has done, with truth; for I think its total want of truth is the blemish of the whole description. I was then travelling in a railway carriage, and I handed the paper containing the report to one of the noble Lord's supporters, and pointing his attention to that part of the speech, I remarked that it was one of the most amusing fictions that I had ever read in my life. But the noble Earl was particularly delighted with the truth of that description. Now, it did not strike me in that way, and I certainly do not think the public who read the speech,
  1302
  and the explanation of it given by the right hon. Gentleman himself, will take the same view of its truth as the noble Earl has done. Mr. Disraeli in his speech at Slough indulged in a feeling of self-glorification as to his financial measures; but I think if there is one point more than another on which that speech may be challenged, it is that very part of it. One would have thought on reading his speech that the late Government had reduced the country to irretrievable ruin, and that the present Government had stepped in and set everything to rights. But how have they done this? Why, on the very simple principle of not muddling away their money in paying their debts, and postponing to a future occasion those liabilities which it would have been more statesmanlike to meet in a more bold and direct manner. The noble Earl also claimed credit for a reduction of the rate of interest on Exchequer bills; but he might as well have taken credit for the glorious sun which has shone this day, for that reduction of interest is owing to the improved state of the money market, and one Government is no more entitled to boast of it than another. My noble Friend first asked this question of the noble Earl—Whether he would subscribe to the statement of Mr. Disraeli, that the question of a war between this country and France was one not of days but of hours on the accession of the present Government to office. The noble Earl endeavoured to meet that question with the very greatest difficulty. He was determined not to abandon the defence of an absent Friend, yet the question he more or less evaded. The noble Earl says he is justified in saying so, because the late Government brought the whole matter into confusion by not carrying the Bill with which they had tantalized the French Government, and thus created the difficulty of the position. But whose fault was it that we did not carry that Bill? The noble Earl said that Mr. Disraeli guarded himself in the approval which he gave of the Bill in the first instance; but what did the Chancellor of Ireland? What did Mr. Walpole? They followed the same course as the noble Earl had done in indicating and urging upon the Government the very Bill, and more than the Bill, which we afterwards introduced, and which was thrown out upon a similar Motion to one they had previously opposed—I will not say in consequence of, but in strange coincidence with the fact that a large number

  1303
  of Liberals voted against the Bill, and that a junction with those Liberals afforded the then Opposition the means of petting the then Government in a minority. The noble Earl talked of "tantalizing" the French Government. Now, I think that although credit is due to the late Government for the manner in which they conducted all affairs, yet special credit is due to them for their management of foreign affairs, and for their forbearance from raising questions that might endanger our relations with foreign Powers. Now the question is at rest; but I may ask the noble Earl, who talks of tantalizing the French Government, what has become of the Bill which he said would depend upon the answer which Count Walewski might return to the Government despatch?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I said nothing of the sort. I said that when we received the answer it would be time enough to decide upon the course we should pursue.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Well, surely, that comes to the same thing. Another question asked by my noble Friend was as to the explanation of a most serious accusation brought against some individuals of having formed a cabal with some foreigners with a view to upsetting the Queen's Government. To that question the noble Earl opposite has given no answer—no hypothesis presented itself to him, and he declared he would not enter into it. I, therefore, have a right to believe that either the noble Earl does not understand what his colleague has stated, or, understanding it, he entirely repudiates the charge as false and unfounded. The next question touched upon by the noble Earl was India, and upon that subject there is but one point to which I would refer. The noble Earl says that no one in either House, whether a friend of Lord Canning or not, has dared to rise and defend the Proclamation. Now, I deny that to be the fact. I say there are those who are convinced the Proclamation was perfectly right, but who have said they could not defend that misrepresentation of the Proclamation which was put forth by those who attacked Lord Canning. I am prepared to abide by that declaration. As to the whole case of India I am happy to say that Lord Canning's character stands too high to be affected by any post-prandial speech uttered in a tavern at Slough. The provider of the entertainment, as I see by the papers, was mine host "Bragg." I say no such speech can affect the high
  1304
  position of Lord Canning. We have this evening heard the noble Earl declare his intention of supporting Lord Canning, and I place the fullest confidence in that declaration; and if supported by the Government of the present day, and by the public opinion of the country, I believe Lord Canning will require no defence from speeches such as that we have been considering. I do not know that there was anything further that fell from the noble Earl in his laudable and ingenious defence of his absent Friend which requires lengthened comment from me; but I must express my thanks to my noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) who, by his temperate, moderate, and conclusive speech has afforded us an opportunity not only of demolishing the statements made at the famous Slough dinner, but also of enlightening the public upon points upon which serious misconceptions had hitherto existed.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, there are two or three points which my noble Friend the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs has touched upon in a way that I consider incorrect,—no doubt involuntarily so, on his part. My Lords, I will not say how absurd it appears to me—I hope your Lordships will excuse the word, for really it does appear absurd to me to have heard the catechism which my noble Friend has put to this side of the House. And on what subject did that catechetical discourse proceed? Why, upon a speech which he did not hear himself, but about which he asks an explanation of persons who did not hear it any more than himself. When an explanation was asked of the speech in the other House of Parliament there was sense in the request, and I think it was also fair; because, as my noble Friend opposite has truly said, any person occupying the high position of a Chancellor of the Exchequer may be, to a certain degree, even out of Parliament, responsible for what he says in political matters. In the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer was present to answer his interlocutors; but in this House, where we did not hear the speech, although it might have been correctly reported, it is manifestly absurd to be catechised upon the question, and asked what did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean? The noble Earl opposite has called attention to the subject of our relations with France, and to the slight disagreement between England and France that existed three months ago, at the fall of the last

  1305
  Government. Now it is quite correct to say that we were on the verge of a war—it is quite correct to say that the position of both countries was most critical—because when I took office I constantly saw the French Ambassador on the subject of the arrangements and correspondence that were necessary; and I do not scruple to say, my Lords, that the Ambassador looked upon it as one of the greatest and gravest dangers; and I never saw him, day after day, without his expressing, in plain and distinct terms, that we were arrived at a crisis of the most imminent danger.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: If we did not go on with the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Yes, if we did not go on with the Bill. And I would ask the noble Earl whether he will tell this House, should the Ministry of which he was a Member come into office to-morrow, that they would bring in that Bill in the face of the country?—and unless he is ready to say so, I am ready to say he has no right to interrupt me in the way that he has. My Lords, I further state that it is not a vision and a fiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he says that at that moment the country was approaching a most dangerous crisis, and that the alliance with France was in danger, because I have the authority of the French Ambassador, who constantly represented the impending danger, and looked on it with grave apprehension. Another observation was made by my noble Friend opposite, which, I think, was not a fair one; at all events it was totally, entirely, and completely incorrect. He stated that he heard and believed that the French Ambassador had complained of a breach of faith.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I said it was the talk of the town. I never said I believed it.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Then, if the noble Earl did not believe it, why waste their Lordships' time with the repetition of mere idle rumour? It is not customary for a noble Lord to state in this House what he does not believe. But, my Lords, I have an opportunity of stating that the rumour is not correct, and if my noble Friend hears me to the end of my argument, I know very well he will disbelieve it. And my noble Friend, when he made the observation, reminded us more than once of the fact that in a journal supposed to be intimately connected with the late Prime Minister, it was stated that it
  1306
  was in consequence of a breach of faith that Count Persigny left this country. Now, if the journal in question, or any other journal states that, I have no hesitation in saying that is utterly and completely incorrect, and Count Persigny would be the first man to say so; and to say further that nothing was done or written by the present Government that caused his leaving his high post in this country, but some disagreement with his own principal in his own country. Then as regarded the Cagliari question. It would appear that the speech of the noble Viscount made in "another place," if rightly reported, was made to impress on the House of Commons the fact that both the prisoners Park and Watt had been released from prison before the late Government left office. But Mr. Lyons, in his despatch dated the 24th of March, wrote to me to the effect that Park on that day only had been released from prison on bail. One of them was depraver of his reason and the other broken in health; but since we have been in office I have used my best endeavours to obtain the liberation of both prisoners, and they have been liberated, and unconditionally. We ought, I think, my Lords, to be extremely thankful to the noble Earl for the lecture he has read us on the necessity of cultivating habits of public discretion—for that is what his catechism really amounts to. But, my Lords, there is a homely but apposite proverb, "Let those who live in glass houses take care how they throw stones;" and truly the late Prime Minister may be said to live in a crystal palace, for he is surrounded on all sides by glass. Now, my Lords, did it never occur to the noble Viscount himself, or his supporters, that he had never himself forgotten or despised those rules of discretion which his noble Friend had so recommended for admiration and adoption. My Lords, we all recollect that our amicable relations with the very country whose alliance the noble Viscount values so much and says so much about was, no long while ago, jeopardised and endangered by the indiscretion of the noble Viscount himself. It will probably be in your Lordships' recollection, that at a Lord Mayor's dinner, two years ago, the noble Viscount made a speech that called for explanation from the French Ambassador. Fortunately for the noble Viscount, the French Ambassador was absent in Paris and not present at the dinner, and did not hear the speech, or he would have walked out of the room. And

  1307
  then, on another occasion, it will be remembered that the noble Viscount did not exhibit the discretion that has been referred to as a model of public propriety. Your Lordships will remember the address of the noble Viscount—worse than a speech for it was deliberately written—his address to the electors of Tiverton, in which so much discretion and even decency were displayed. Did the noble Viscount recollect when he characterised a majority of the House of Lords and a majority of the House of Commons as men who were ready to make the disgrace of their country a stepping-stone to office. My Lords, I think those noble Lords and Members who serve under a leader who is accustomed, and not seldom, to make use of that language out of Parliament and in Parliament, might very well have refrained from inflicting on us the castigation which my noble Friend has inflicted on us this evening. My Lords, I think that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if taken line by line, and word for word, could not, either in its tone, or taste, or probable consequences, be compared with the speech in a discretionary point of view, of the noble Viscount on the occasions to which I have alluded.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, referring to the question which had been put by the noble Earl who had just spoken, as to whether Her Majesty's late Government would, if they were to return to office tomorrow, proceed with the Conspiracy Bill, said, he would give no opinion as to what might be done at the present or at any future time with that measure, but he had no doubt if, at the time of the retirement of Count Persigny, Her Majesty's late Government had been in power they would have proceeded with that Bill, and as little doubt that in so acting they would have received the support of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, as well as of his political Friends. The noble Earl had himself said, after his accession to office, that the proper time to deal with such a measure was after a fitting answer had been returned to the despatch of Count Walewski. He might also remind their Lordships that the present Secretary of State for the Home Department had, in the discussion which had taken place Upon the Bill in the other House of Parliament, declared it to be his determination—the honour of England having, as he deemed to be necessary, been in the first instance vindicated by means of an answer to the
  1308
  despatch of the French Government—to give his cordial support to the Bill before the House. It was under those circumstances clear, he thought, that the colleagues of the noble Earl must aid in the passing of a measure, of which he seemed to entertain so great a horror, should it ever be introduced.
  House adjourned at a quarter to Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Three o'clock.